British Aid Payments

Lord Willoughby de Broke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will in future make British aid payments to recipient countries direct rather than through the European Union institutions.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are obliged by EU treaty to contribute to the EC's development programmes. These are often of poor quality and we are addressing this. We restricted the growth of the external assistance EC budget in March 1999, succeeding in holding down growth to 1 per cent for the years 2000-06--in stark contrast to the agreement at the 1992 Edinburgh Council for a 180 per cent increase for 1992-99.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply, but it really is not good enough. Is the noble Baroness aware that it takes an average of four and a half years to implement any EU aid programme, between the time it is agreed and the time that aid reaches the recipients? By then, the problem is probably over or the intended recipients are dead. Would it not be much better if British taxpayers' money was responsibly used by the Government rather than given to the treacle-waders in Brussels to dispose of in this incredibly inefficient way?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we recognise the deficiencies in the EC aid programme. We published an 18-point strategy to improve the poverty focus and effectiveness of EC development assistance. We already have a large bilateral programme; however, we recognise that our leverage as a development and aid donor is much increased through our multilateral programmes. The EC is one of the largest multilateral donors in the world, and we see our commitment as being to improve the European Union so that poverty focus and effectiveness are increased.

Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, the Edinburgh Council agreement was obviously a great mistake. Will the Minister confirm that something like 30 per cent of our total aid programme is now siphoned through Brussels--in a programme that matches the CAP in incompetence if not corruption? Is it not time that the wishes of the Secretary of State to repatriate the programme and to bring it under British administration and British priorities should now be carried through, in spite of whatever the treaties have said?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely correct: 30 per cent of our development assistance programme goes through the European Union. That is why we have such a strong commitment to trying to improve the programme. We have published institutional strategy papers to cover the range of multilateral donors, including the European Union, the World Bank and UN system. We have made it clear that we want to see improvements in that system. As I said in my original Answer, we feel that the leverage that we are able to apply, both through the European Union process and working in concert with our European Union partners, means that it is important that we improve the effectiveness of the programme rather than withdrawing from it.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, would it not be a great mistake to pre-judge the effect of the reforms already identified by our commissioner, Mr Christopher Patten, and which I understand he has already begun to implement?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can confirm that there has been a commitment to reform of the EC programmes. We are much encouraged by that. However, we want to see more than just a commitment to reform. We want to see the reforms implemented, and we are pushing for that implementation. Both Commissioner Patten and Commissioner Nielson, who are now the two commissioners with responsibility for development assistance, have shown commitment to the reform.

Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the rhetorical panoply now deployed by certain English politicians against increasing co-operation between the countries of Europe was once deployed by English politicians against increasing co-operation between the countries that have come to make up Britain? Will the Minister agree that they were wrong once, and may well be wrong again?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have made the Government's position clear. We see our role as being part of the commitment to reforming the European Union programmes. We have published a strategy which makes it very clear what we expect to happen. Some of the reforms are already being taken on board. We want to see much clearer implementation, and an action plan associated with the development policy strategy that has now been developed. Yes, I agree with the noble Lord that it is important that we work with other countries on this matter rather than against them.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, if, as Commissioner Patten has said, EU aid is badly managed, less efficient and not in the interest of those who receive it, can the noble Baroness explain what is the leverage that we get through disguising the fact that the aid has come from this country and channelling it through the EU? What is the benefit in that?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the EU programme, of which 30 per cent of our budget forms part, is extremely large. One of the things that we want to see is greater emphasis on the elimination of poverty, which is the focus of our own development programme set out in the White Paper. If greater resources are channelled through the EU to lower income countries to assist in poverty eradication, as we began to see happening in the recent renegotiations on Lome, for example, clearly that process will be speeded up.

Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the investigations carried out last year into the whole operation of these funds as administered by the Commission showed widespread fraud and irregularity? Does the Minister agree that for British taxpayers, who contribute £2.5 billion net to the Community, it would be far better for the programme to be repatriated so that we can direct the aid where we want it to go?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I believe that I have already addressed the point. Perhaps I should repeat that member states are now working with the new Commission to stop fraud and strengthen controls. We have been leading that process. We want to ensure that EU funds are spent properly and effectively on development and other programmes. That is the agenda to which the Government have committed themselves, and I believe that it is a good one.

Development Aid: Universal Education

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	By what criteria the proportion of the overseas development aid budget spent on primary and secondary education is decided; and what proportion they expect to assign to them in each of the next five years.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Department for International Development does not primarily allocate its resources on a sectoral basis. It is committed to the international development target of achieving universal primary education by 2015 and over the past three years has committed £300 million to support the development of UPE programmes. The DfID will continue to give high priority to universal primary education in its bilateral and multilateral programmes.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but does she agree that the prospects for development in much of the world are bleak? While more than 125 million children of primary school age--two-thirds of them girls--are still not in school and there is an adult illiteracy rate of more than 880 million, if we are serious about achieving anything in international co-operation for development, is it not essential that, together with other countries, we turn generalised commitments into specific measurable targets to achieve the goal of universal primary education by 2015?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend's analysis of the number of children not in school, a significant proportion of whom are girls, and the high levels of illiteracy. A recent education conference in Dakar re-committed itself to the target of universal primary education, and UNESCO has been given responsibility for co-ordination and ensuring that that target is met. The Department for International Development has taken a sector-wide approach to the whole area of education in the countries in which it works. In the work that we do in those countries we set ourselves measurable targets and are committed to its achievement. We are sure that with political will that target can be achieved.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, the expansion of primary education is one of the key criteria for debt cancellation. As the Social Summit is to meet in six days' time in Geneva, at a time of considerable slippage in the HIPC process, does the Minister accept that to expand primary education is an essential element in pursuing debt cancellation? What proposals does the noble Baroness have to assist the primary and secondary education sectors in those countries which apply for HIPC debt relief? Further, can the Minister tell the House what role the British Council will play in this?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is a clear link between the importance of achieving universal primary education and the elimination of poverty. There is also a link between the importance of educating girls and the impact that that has on a number of social development indicators in countries across the world. As to the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, the noble Baroness will be aware that we have fought long and hard for a greater correspondence between countries in receipt of HIPC and a commitment by them to poverty reduction. Those countries must now produce poverty reduction strategies and demonstrate ways in which they will use the money saved through HIPC on areas like health and education. We are entirely committed to that process. Through the Commonwealth debt initiative we have created a greater link between debt relief and education in countries like Jamaica.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I welcome what the Government have achieved under their own debt relief programme, but does the Minister agree that girls in particular find it increasingly difficult to take part in education when governments cannot afford to spend money on primary education? In the light of that, is there not a case for relaxing some of the strict criteria that HIPC imposes, because of the small number of countries that are presently eligible for debt relief under that initiative?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps I may deal, first, with the number of countries eligible. It is not so much that a small number of countries are eligible but that the process of those countries going through HIPC has slowed down. That is one of the reasons why at the last World Bank/IMF meeting there was a commitment to the creation of an implementation committee to assist with the speeding up of that process.
	We prefer to work with countries which have a commitment to putting money into areas like education. We want to work in partnership with those countries because we feel that it is important that the commitment comes from within a country as well as being supported with donor money like ours.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, a number of noble Lords have referred to the education of girls in developing countries. Can the Minister indicate any special initiatives which have been taken by the Government to overcome some of the problems in obtaining education which face girls in developing countries? I refer in particular to secondary education.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have taken a sector-wide approach to education. We are looking at primary education. In some countries we are looking also at secondary education. We are also considering the importance of training and developing the skills of teachers. If there are no teachers the skills cannot be developed.
	Educating girls, even just at primary level, is the most effective development intervention any country can make. We have been encouraging countries such as Uganda, Kenya, Ghana, India and Bangladesh to take specific initiatives to target girls' education.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of PLAN International, an NGO working in the field. Does the Minister agree that there is merit in working with NGOs--DfID is very good about it--which work in a wider field? NGOs can look not only at education but also at the wider issues such as the need for water or food. Children may be prevented from receiving education because they are needed to help with other practical issues.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, in our bilateral programmes on education we work with governments and with NGOs precisely because, as the noble Baroness indicates, NGOs on the ground can work across a range of sectors. They can pull communities together in a beneficial way. They can indeed be beneficial for girls and boys in those communities.

New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, Section 74

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why they have not yet been able to make the appropriate orders in pursuance of their undertaking to implement Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, on 5th April Ministers announced the Government's intention to implement Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act to charge utilities for overstaying. We are now working with utilities and highways authorities to develop a scheme and we expect to have it ready by the end of July. We intend to consult on the enabling regulations over the summer and lay them for affirmative resolution before the end of this Session. The scheme will then be started as soon as possible provided, of course, that Parliament approves the regulations.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I must confess that I am slightly grateful. Does the Minister understand how welcome his presence is at the Dispatch Box today, indicating just a tiny bit of progress and demonstrating that his noble friend Lord Sainsbury meant what he said on 5th April? It is a great relief to us all.
	I ask a very simple question. I try to understand the ways of government. Of course, it may be through old age that I am not so quick as I was, but for the life of me I cannot understand why it is that governments who seek to be popular do not take every opportunity, and the powers currently available, to discourage those who persistently make a mess of our roads and a nuisance of themselves?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, before I answer the noble Lord, perhaps I may congratulate those noble Lords who today succeeded in navigating the roadworks of Westminster encountered when cycling from my ministry to Parliament.
	I agree with the noble Lord. This matter excites exasperation in all of us. However, the response must be in keeping with the problem. There are differing opinions on the situation. Our consultation received 160 responses: 48 per cent were in favour of full lane rental, as is the noble Lord. However, 32 per cent were against. As we go through the consultative period we want to hear the views of the utilities and those who might have the charges passed to them, as well as the concerns of the highway authorities and others.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does the Minister agree that nothing is more infuriating than for one set of streetworks to be completed by one utility and for the same stretch of road then to be dug up by another? Does the noble Lord welcome the initiative by the Central London Partnership taken this morning in the publication of its document Making Streetworks Work which recommends that in future there should be trench sharing rather than trench warfare?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we welcome the various initiatives taken in this area, in particular any initiative which would clear the flow of traffic in central London. The campaign to which my noble friend refers aims to ensure that when the principal routes in central London are being worked on, alternative routes must be kept clear. I believe that this affects 120 key roads in London. Neighbouring authorities and utilities will have to ensure that they keep the same routes free of major works when other major works are being undertaken in the vicinity. Ideally, they should aim to avoid digging up a road again for at least a year after any major works.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, will the Government consider compelling hole diggers to meet the cost of traffic wardens or some form of traffic control to relieve the type of congestion which one saw this morning at the important junction at Gloucester Road? Two totally unrelated contractors succeeded in nullifying the effect of the entire lighting system.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I take the point about intelligent deployment of any moneys raised in the charging packages. A key element of the package that we hope to introduce under Section 74 would be the level of charges. It has been suggested that the illustrative charges might be £500 per day for traffic-sensitive streets and perhaps £100 on other roads. Another option is perhaps to double those figures in central London. Those charges have to be viewed against the turnover of the utilities involved and whether they would be passed on to consumers. Noble Lords may be assured that highway authorities are able to keep charges from Section 74 schemes and could deploy them, therefore, as the noble Lord suggests. However, it is worth remembering that if the scheme is effective, the income should be small.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, the Minister's words seem like a breath of fresh air. Can the noble Lord say why more intensive information has not been given and followed with regard to the technology which uses a microprocess to lay the cables, which would otherwise disturb our roads? The process already exists. It is widely used in Canada. Only a keyhole, as it were, has to be dug. What advances are being made in that area?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I cannot tell your Lordships what advances are being made in that form of technology. However, I shall make inquiries and report back.
	We have a new form of notification where the utilities are expected to send via the Internet notices of works to the highway authorities involved. It is known as electronic transfer of notices or, in an acronym which will sound familiar to some, ETON.

HIPC Initiative: Okinawa Summit

The Earl of Sandwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress they expect in the heavily indebted poor countries initiative at the G8 Summit in Okinawa.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, debt is an important issue on the Okinawa Summit agenda. Heads of Government plan to review and encourage progress on the HIPC debt relief initiative with a view to meeting the target set at last year's Cologne Summit of seeing three-quarters of eligible countries receiving debt relief by the end of this year. The UK Government remain committed to this target and will continue to do all they can to ensure that these countries receive the debt relief they so urgently need.
	The UK has taken a leading role in the development of the HIPC debt relief initiative and our bilateral policy of 100 per cent debt forgiveness underlines our commitment.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for reaffirming the Government's intentions on the HIPC process, although they still fall well short of the 100 per cent target agreed at Cologne. Would he agree that it is time to turn our attention to future World Bank lending? For instance, under its new country assistance strategy, the World Bank is embarking on a 1 billion dollar loan for Tanzania which merely replaces the debt relief of 1 billion dollars that Tanzania has already received. What is the guarantee that the Bank has a new lending policy which will ensure that future loans are based on sustainable strategies, especially in agriculture?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his recognition of the outstanding role of the UK Government in these matters. The new lending that is proposed for Tanzania will be on highly concessionary terms. It will be related not only to industrial projects but on the basis of Tanzania's poverty reduction strategy paper. My noble friend Lady Amos referred to that in response to an earlier Question. Therefore, the loan will be for projects such as agriculture, health, rural roads and water.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's comment about the UK's leading role and its policy of 100 per cent debt forgiveness, how many countries have received debt cancellation from the British Government under the policy of cancellation of all debts owed to the UK by developing countries? Furthermore, can he tell the House how much debt has been cancelled by the British Government in each case?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should have to produce a large table to answer that question in detail, but I can say that our contribution to the HIPC trust fund is the largest in the world, at 350 million dollars. All the G7 countries have agreed to follow our example, with 100 per cent relief on bilateral aid. That is not a bad record.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, the Churches are highly appreciative of the lead taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, there have been disturbing reports that the high hopes set for the G8 Summit will not be achieved. Are there serious obstacles to achieving the target and, if so, what might they be?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the first obstacle was to get the item on the agenda. Our officials working on the agenda have overcome that. As I indicated in my Answer, it is now agreed that the item will play an important part on the agenda. Japan, in particular, as host country has made a commitment to that. We shall have to wait and see how the negotiations progress at Okinawa, but I can assure the right reverend Prelate that we are pushing hard for a better outcome from HIPC 2.

Lord Judd: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the urgency of the situation is underlined by the consistent fall in levels of development assistance from the wealthy countries of the world, with the honourable exception of the United Kingdom and the lead given by the DfID? In those circumstances, is there not something despicable about the wealthy nations of the world meeting to discuss how they can shore up their wealth without falling in behind the lead given by the Chancellor and others on what we should be doing together to fulfil our responsibilities in the wider world?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not for me to criticise other countries in the way in which they approach the G8 Summit. Of course they come with their own motivation, and our role is to pursue, and to encourage them to pursue, a firm and effective strategy for the reduction of world poverty. After all, it was the Labour Government who pushed for the adoption of HIPC 2, which now covers 38 countries and a total of 100 billion dollars. That is no mean achievement.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, will the Government consider pushing for a change of rules for the World Bank and the IMF so that they may consider changing from loans, even on a concessionary basis, to grants for social spending? Some countries--for instance, Haiti--have unsustainable debt and they will never be able to repay even the most lenient concessionary loans.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there will always be a role for grants, particularly for disaster relief. Indeed, referring back to an earlier Question, the European Commission makes a considerable number of grants for this purpose. I believe that loans will always have a major role to play because they enable the provision of relief earlier than would otherwise be possible.

Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and the Government on their excellent record on debt relief, but would he not agree that while 600 million people live in 40 HIPC countries, many billions living in other developing countries rely heavily on concessionary aid? Would he further agree that it is extremely important that while the debt initiative must be properly financed, it should not be an excuse for OECD countries to reduce the rest of their development assistance and thus rob Peter to pay Paul?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, those are wise words from my noble friend.

Alliance & Leicester Group Treasury plc (Transfer) Bill [H.L.]

Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Transport Bill

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I explained the background to the Motion.
	It has been agreed through the usual channels that it would be advantageous to commit the Bill to the Moses Room for a single day, specifically to allow the government amendments to be inserted into the Bill. Once this has been done, the Bill will be reprinted as amended and recommitted in its entirety to a Committee of the Whole House.
	The Bill which is considered in Committee of the Whole House will therefore be a clean copy incorporating all the government amendments. It will then be open to your Lordships to move amendments to the Bill in the usual way.
	Although the purpose of the Motion is to allow government amendments to be inserted, the Motion does not prevent other amendments from being tabled. However, I would urge those of your Lordships who have already tabled amendments to consider withdrawing them before the Marshalled List for the Grand Committee is printed and retabling them for the Committee of the Whole House. This can be done very simply by talking to the Public Bill Office and it would assist with the practicalities of reprinting the Bill for the Committee of the Whole House.
	I should be happy to talk to any of your Lordships who are affected by the arrangement and the Government Whips Office is also happy to provide advice and assistance on this subject. The purpose of the Motion is to allow the Bill to be handled in a way which will make an effective and efficient use of the time of the House.
	Moved, That the order of commitment of 5th June be discharged and that the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee; that the Bill as amended in the Grand Committee be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; and that the Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House of 7th June (order of consideration of clauses and Schedules) be instead an Instruction to the Grand Committee.--(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I want to congratulate the Minister on his well placed sense of modesty and shyness in seeking to handle a very awkward stage of a very clumsy Bill in a reasonably delicate fashion without revealing the full horror to an unnecessary degree of public examination and perhaps even slight distaste and disapproval.
	At the same time, I should not like to leave my noble friends on the Front Bench out of the torrent of goodwill which is proceeding from my lips. I congratulate them on their generosity, even if I believe that on this occasion they may rather have overdone it and been a little too generous where the deserts were not all that obvious.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the Minister replies, for the convenience of the House can he inform us how many government amendments are to be put down which necessitate this rather unusual move? After all, a great deal of time has been spent on the Bill in the other place and we have already spent one day debating it here. Can he tell us how many amendments necessitate this strange idea?

Lord Henley: My Lords, before the Minister responds, perhaps I may say a word or two, partly in response to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Peyton. The Minister is right to say that this matter was agreed following discussions through the usual channels. We agreed to it with some disquiet, if I may express it that way, because it is not the ideal way in which to deal with the Bill.
	The simple fact is that far too many Bills are coming from the Government. There are far too many government amendments, and one suspects that that is because the Bills are thoroughly badly drafted. The fault does not lie with the draftsman but with Ministers who obviously give inadequate instructions to the draftsman to ensure that Bills are right in the first place.
	Therefore, can the Minister give us an assurance that no further government amendments will be put down following those tabled at this early stage? Secondly, we all accept that the Moses Room is not always the ideal place in which to deal with this type of business. If, on the day that is eventually chosen for the Bill to go to the Moses Room, more Peers wish to take part than wish to discuss whatever the business may be in the House--this may be more a question for the Government Chief Whip--perhaps at that stage the two pieces of legislation could be swapped round.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I wonder whether noble Lords are making too heavy weather of this matter and looking a gift horse in the mouth. As I understand it, such a move would not set a precedent. It has been done before, and I look upon it as a means of simplifying the debating procedure.
	Noble Lords may make points about whose convenience is best served. I believe that it is the convenience of the House. We will have a clear run at what I understand the Government consider to be a tidy process. Noble Lords have sat in this House through Committee stages of Bills which have been a mixture of private initiatives, official opposition and official government. My understanding of the proscriptions that exist on business in the Moses Room is that there will be no inhibition on any individual to move in or out of the Moses Room and no one's rights will be infringed. The procedure appears to provide a tidy way of making progress. I shall listen, as will others, to what the Minister has to say. However, I look upon the move as a benefit to the House.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, it is possible that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is right when he says that this move is for the benefit of the House as a whole. However, that is with the proviso that the House has plenty of time to absorb what takes place in the Moses Room. Those of us who have worked in this building for a number of years know that Bills can be changed out of all recognition when government amendments have been tabled.
	Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that a reasonable gap will occur between the Moses Room procedures and the return of the Bill to the House. It seems to me that the two-weekends rule provides a sensible way in which to approach the matter. I hope that, having taken his instructions from the Chief Whip, the Minister will be able to tell us that the two-weekends rule will apply between discussion of the Bill in the Moses Room and its return to the Floor of the House.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Jopling. I speak as an unimportant Back-Bencher. However, Back-Benchers are concerned about what happens and, if government amendments are to be brought forward, we should be given notice. I know that my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip was reluctant to accept the proposal. As I understand it, no agreement was reached as to the way in which the government amendments would be dealt with. Therefore, from these Back Benches I support what was said by my noble friend Lord Jopling.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, I am unable to state exactly how many government amendments will be tabled. I can assure noble Lords that, for my liking, there will be too many. No doubt there will be the usual profusion of technicalities which nowadays seem to cluster around every Bill. We hope that by dealing with those in the Moses Room, much of the clutter will be cleared out of the way before the Bill reaches its Committee stage in the House. That would allow us to have a clearer and better debate on the underlying issues that your Lordships may want to address at greater length.
	As to whether a reasonable gap will follow our deliberations in the Moses Room, I can assure the House that the Bill will be reprinted the following morning. However, I am unable to confirm that two clear weekends will follow that. But I hope that noble Lords will feel that sufficient time is available in which to address the issues that I shall introduce in amendments.
	I accept in good part the congratulations of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, on the elegance of what is being suggested. However, as my noble friend Lord Graham said, it has been done before. When we dealt with the Reserve Forces Bill in 1996 the Opposition neither moved nor spoke to amendments in an attempt to allow the passage of that legislation. Although I should be delighted to accept his congratulations, I shall direct them towards my Chief Whip, whose ingenuity knows no bounds.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Terrorism Bill

Report received.
	Clause 1 [Terrorism: interpretation]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (1) and insert--
	("(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where--
	(a) the action falls within subsection (1A),
	(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
	(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
	(1A) Action falls within this subsection if it--
	(a) involves serious violence against a person,
	(b) involves serious damage to property,
	(c) endangers a person's life,
	(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
	(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
	(1B) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (1A) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.").

Lord Bach: My Lords, first, perhaps I may apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Bassam, who has taken the Bill through the House thus far. He will of course be in his place at Third Reading. He is not here because he has been asked to represent the Home Office today in Charleroi in Belgium. Before he agreed to do so, he sought the permission of the Opposition Front Bench spokesman. The House will be interested to hear that he was granted that permission.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I confirm that it seemed to me to be in the national interest that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, should be about his duties as the Minister with responsibility for football hooligans, even though it meant that other Ministers had to look after the Terrorism Bill.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. Perhaps he teaches some of his Front Bench a lesson in manners. I know not.
	I have had placed in the Printed Paper Office and handed to opposition spokesmen the definition of terrorism that would result if the government amendments to Clause 1 and other clauses were accepted.
	I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4, 24 and 49, as well as the others grouped with them. In the light of the debates on Second Reading and in Committee in your Lordships' House, we have looked again at the definition of terrorism in Clause 1. We have always said that we were prepared to listen to concerns raised about the definition and we have tabled amendments in response to two specific lines of argument. I hope that they will find favour with the House.
	The first change that we propose addresses action designed seriously to interfere with or disrupt an electronic system. It is included to ensure that serious disruption to computer systems to advance a political, religious or ideological cause is covered. Many noble Lords from all sides pressed us during earlier stages of the Bill to take that step, particularly in the wake of recent events. Our amendment is an important improvement to the Bill. As a consequence, the amendments to Clause 113 and Schedule 9 also add offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to the list of scheduled offences in Schedule 9, so that those offences in Northern Ireland can be treated in the same way as other offences that terrorists commit.
	We have also introduced an explicit requirement that for an action to be considered terrorism its purpose must, in most circumstances, be to intimidate the public or influence a government. The exception is when firearms or explosives are used. We have provided that to ensure that, for example, assassinations for political or other purposes are definitely covered. Of course, normally the terrorist use of firearms or explosives is a wicked attempt to put the public at fear, and often to influence a government as well, but we do not want the police to feel hindered in any way from acting in situations that most, if not all of us would regard as terrorism--such as assassinations--because it was not clear that either of those elements was present.
	I hope that the introduction of this second new element to the definition will be welcome. Many have commented that our definition was seriously flawed because it lacked an explicit link with the concept of terror. That has been rectified. I should add in passing that we have moved, as some had suggested, from speaking of serious violence to serious damage to property. I beg to move.

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, as Amendment No. 3 is also being spoken to and is in this group, I must point out that if Amendment No. 2 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 3.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 stands in my name and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who cannot be with us this afternoon. Those who have looked at the amendments will see that Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are remarkably similar. The noble and learned Lord and I think that the government amendment is entirely satisfactory and will meet the wishes that were expressed earlier in our debates.
	The Minister has drawn attention to some of the changes in the definition of terrorism that we and others asked for, starting with the insertion of terror and intimidation. One of the extraordinary features of the Bill's original definition of terrorism was that it did not include terror. I am glad to say that it is now rightly included. The amendment also extends the definition to cover what is known in the jargon as cyber-terrorism--the destruction of electronic systems. That is very important, because great damage can be caused to public life and the public can be held to ransom by computer hacking of one kind or another. Terrorists have already begun to do that and may do so a great deal more in the future.
	It is also clear from how the amendment is inserted in the Bill that terrorism involving overseas countries and governments is included. That is also important. We do not want the United Kingdom to be the base from which terrorists operate against foreign governments in pursuit of foreign aims.
	Amendment No. 49 rightly brings offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 committed in Northern Ireland into the list of scheduled offences that can be dealt with by the Diplock courts and all the associated machinery, for as long as it is necessary. Financial rackets and rackets involving computers can be just as damaging as bombs and guns in the hands of terrorists in Northern Ireland. Given the difficulties that there have been in courts in Northern Ireland in the past, it is important that those offences should be included in the list of scheduled offences.
	I am grateful to the Government for amending the definition of terrorism along the lines suggested in earlier debates. I support Amendment No. 1 and the others being discussed with it.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we would have given more or less unreserved support to Amendment No. 2. I discussed its drafting with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. We particularly welcome the introduction of the concept of intimidation as a necessary part of the definition of terrorism.
	Our welcome for Amendment No. 1 is more qualified. It is unquestionably an improvement on the original definition, so we do not intend to oppose it, but we find aspects of it distinctly worrying. In particular, it includes actions that may influence the Government without intimidating any section of the public. That may be justified in certain cases, but the amendment is currently too wide. We accept that the definition needs to cover actions that are not directed specifically against the public, such as the assassination of leading members of the Government or people in similar positions, but it needs to be tightened up. It is difficult to justify treating as terrorism an action that involves serious damage to property if it merely influences the Government and is not likely to intimidate the public. That is particularly relevant when we consider that we may be talking about not just the Government of the United Kingdom, but those overseas.
	In principle, we support the exception for the use of firearms or explosives, but it leaves a gap, because it does not cover a situation in which a member of the Government is hijacked and then strangled rather than shot. That is perhaps an unlikely situation, but it is possible.
	Our view of this is, therefore, that we cannot give unqualified approval to Amendment No. 1. As I said, we do not intend to oppose it because we regard it as an improvement, but we shall look at it carefully. It is more than likely that we shall want to bring back amendments to the redefined definition on Third Reading in order to be able to have a full debate on the issue. Therefore, for today, I simply say that we do not oppose the amendment.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, some of the amendments in this group are in my name. I welcome the progress which the Government have made in producing a better definition of "terrorism".
	It is not necessarily perfect. I echo the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that it is quite possible that we should look again at new subsection (1A)(b) which relates to serious damage to property, for the reasons that he has explained. My party and I are not happy with new subsection (1A)(c). We do not like the fact that the provisions include endangering the terrorist's own life. I would describe that as the "Swampy"/Emily Davison situation and it does not seem to me to call for this kind of legislation. When Britons are protesting against something and trying to persuade people to change their views and the law, they should be prepared to sacrifice themselves, if necessary, without that becoming a major offence. If they are risking their own lives, they are already risking a great deal. I do not believe that the Government should take that point of view.
	I shall listen to what the Minister has to say when he replies to this part of the debate. But it would certainly be my intention to table an amendment to deal with that at Third Reading.
	By listening and talking, the Government have achieved a much better situation than we had at the last stage of the Bill. I congratulate them on that. I support them in principle, although I have reservations on the detail.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful for the government amendments. I noticed that when moving them the noble Lord, Lord Bach, mentioned recent events. Was he referring to the problems with the computers of the national air traffic control which occurred last Saturday? That may have caused some of your Lordships some inconvenience. It certainly caused me a six-hour delay in taking off on an internal flight within this country. Is the noble Lord able to say anything about the causes of those problems and whether they had any connection, however tenuous, with terrorism?

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am concerned that one of the serious aspects of life in Northern Ireland is the banishing of families. At the moment, I am glad to say that that is peculiar to Northern Ireland. But it has a terrible effect on a whole group of people.
	Does the Minister consider that new subsection (1A)(d) of the government amendment covers that point? If not, I should like to talk to Members on my Front Bench and possibly bring forward an amendment at a later stage. If the Bill already covers that issue, obviously I shall not press it further; but I am concerned about it.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene on this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, referred to new subsection (1A)(c) which deals with endangering a person's life. That leads one to suppose that a hunger strike could be interpreted as terrorism. When he replies will the Minister confirm whether or not that is so?

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is not a Bill in which I have taken an interest so far. At this stage, I do not declare a pecuniary interest, but very close to where I live is the site of the Huntingdon Life Sciences Company. The Minister will be aware that there has been an almost permanent gathering of people squatting at the gates of that company. They have been terrorising--and I use my words and not those of anybody else--the staff of that company.
	Recently that has been taken a further stage and a new phenomenon has arisen in terms of terrorising people. Nowadays, people visit Companies House and they obtain lists of shareholders in particular companies. If a view is taken that, for one reason or another, there is a philosophical objection to the purposes and objectives of the company and the business with which it is involved, those shareholders are terrorised. That may be done through a written letter or, worse, things may be put through their letter boxes or their cars burned.
	There may be direct action taken at the gates of a company. The staff of the company may be terrorised by being shouted at or worse; there may be physical damage to property or people's possessions. Even worse, harm may be done to the staff or shareholders of the company. Is such action encompassed within Amendment No. 1?

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I too support the government amendments. They are a vast improvement on what had gone before. In particular I note that subsection (1)(b) contains the two little words "or threat". I presume that, by implication, that includes the retention of the means of making a threat valid and effective. Therefore, the retention of arms and munitions falls within the scope of that provision.
	There are other minor issues which one could raise but I wish to give broad support to the government amendments.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Government have recognised that there was a problem with the phrase relating to serious violence against persons and property and they have now split that so that the Bill deals with "serious violence" against persons and "serious damage to property".
	But on the last occasion on which we discussed this matter, it was pointed out that the phrase "serious violence" occurs only in Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. There has been only one case brought under that provision which did not turn on the definition itself. Therefore, the courts will have to start with a blank sheet of paper in interpreting what "serious violence" against persons means; and the same is true, pari passu, of "serious damage" against property. I believe that we are placing an unfair burden on the courts in not spelling out exactly what we mean by either of those phrases.
	However, I draw attention to another problem which struck me when I was reading Amendment No. 49. As the Minister pointed out, it makes offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 subject to the special provisions of Part VII of the Bill which provides for non-jury trials on account of the fact that the offences are terrorist-related. Those offences are unauthorised access to a computer either by itself or with a view to committing a further offence, and unauthorised modification. Therefore, that would cover, for example, pure hacking or hacking for the purpose of damaging the computer system, the transmission of a virus, or the use of computers for the purposes of the financial rackets, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred in Northern Ireland.
	Can the Minister tell us whether the Bill catches only people who commit those offences within the Province? Computer hacking and computer interference may be committed from anywhere on the globe. Someone may have the intention of using computers for terrorist-related purposes in Northern Ireland but would not be physically located there. Would the provisions of Amendment No. 49 come into play only if the alleged offender was within the territory of Northern Ireland?

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I, too, was not going to take part in this. However, I am worried and curious about this amendment, which is in danger of being a catch all amendment. It is rather like that wonderful old phrase in the Army,
	"prejudicial to good order and military discipline".
	It seems that almost anything, with a certain amount of imagination, can be described as terrorism. I completely understand the difficulty which everybody is in. Terrorism has to be defined. We all recognise it when we see it but, if we are not careful, the definition will be too wide. Perhaps I may leave that view with the Minister. It is a dilemma in which I find myself.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to noble Lords, as are the Government, for the assistance we have had in attempting to get right this difficult definition. As has been said, it clearly is not an easy task and there are dangers both ways in attempting to do so.
	Some noble Lords gave almost unqualified support to our new definition. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, for what he said both on behalf of himself and of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who was good enough to correspond with my noble friend yesterday and say that he was satisfied with the new Clause 1. That is an important consideration for noble Lords, if one bears in mind the expertise and experience of the noble and learned Lord in this field.
	The Government are comforted by the fact that noble Lords around the House feel that this is an improvement--perhaps even a big improvement--on the stab we made at it in the original Bill that came to this House.
	A number of questions have been asked which I shall do my best to answer. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked about hunger strikers or the terrorist risking blowing himself up. That point was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. We do not believe that that would be covered. It would not, by reason only that such a person endangered his own life, fall within what we believe is the obvious sense of subsection (1A)(c). That person would also have to put the public at risk.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked a question about recent events which we were all sorry to hear caused him such inconvenience last weekend. The answer to his question as to whether we believe that was linked with terrorism is no. The recent events are apparently considered to be related to that famous animal, "The love bug", which the House knows about. There was no direct connection because there was not believed to be a terrorist motivation. However, considerable thought has been given to the reality of the difficulties last weekend.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Park, asked a question about banishing families. A threat of violence may well be involved, coupled with a political motivation. We believe that banishing is caught by the provisions. I hope that that goes some way to satisfying her concern.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about matters close to home. We are aware of a campaign being conducted by animal rights supporters against Huntingdon Life Sciences Company and the criminal activities of a small minority directed at the employees and shareholders. As the noble Baroness will understand, this is an operational matter for the police. They, together with the courts, have the full support of the Government in dealing with those responsible for criminal acts.
	Whether that is covered by this definition depends on the nature of the attack. If serious violence was used, the public was put at fear and the motivation was religious, political or ideological, I can tell the noble Baroness that it could be caught by the provisions set out in Clause 1 of the Bill.
	I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and his concern about the definition of the word "serious" connected with the word "violence". It seems to us that this is not a real problem. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is surrounded by noble Lords who have no doubt summed up to juries on the meaning of grievous bodily harm, a phrase used in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. If I remember rightly, judges will sum up grievous bodily harm as meaning really serious bodily harm. There seems to be no difficulty with the courts defining grievous bodily harm, although it is almost lost in the mists of antiquity. I do not believe there will be any problem in sorting out serious violence from what is not serious violence. Magistrates and juries do it every day of their lives.
	Perhaps I may reflect on the second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and write to him.
	We have had a fairly brief debate on this important issue. The Government are grateful for the support they have received. We know that this is not necessarily the end of the story. However, we believe that we have gone a long way towards satisfying the House.

Lord Monson: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may raise one point. We are all grateful to the Minister for his lengthy and considered reply. However, would he not agree that a hunger strike is a threat of action designed to influence the Government which endangers a person's life? The Minister has not had much time to consider this point, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and myself. I wonder whether he would agree to look at it again between now and Third Reading and possibly come back to us at that point.

Lord Bach: My Lords, of course we will.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask for clarification. I thank him for the detailed answer he gave about the staff of Huntingdon Life Sciences Company. As I understand it, the Minister said that where serious violence or the threat of serious violence caused distress to the public, it would be caught by the measures contained in Amendment No. 1. Can the Minister tell us whether, for the purposes of Clause 1, members of staff are members of the public?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I hope I was careful in the phrase I used. "If serious violence was used and the public was put at fear" was the expression I used. That includes members of staff. But it must be remembered that the motivation of those who put people at fear and use serious violence must be either religious, political or ideological.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4:
	Page 1, line 13, leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("this section").
	Page 1, line 18, at end insert (", and
	(d) "the government" means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
	Clause 3 [Proscription]:

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 2, line 25, at end insert--
	("(6) In exercising his powers to proscribe organisations under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must take into account the activities of any organisation engaging in terrorist activities (as defined in this Act) in countries other than the United Kingdom.").

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, we have just had an interesting debate. But one point worries me in relation to this Bill, which I strongly support. The Bill has evolved from our experience of dealing with local terrorism during the past 30 years, both through legislation and sophisticated intelligence. But the world of terrorism has expanded and become equally sophisticated. In fact, the danger from terrorism today to this nation is considerably more than it was 30 years ago.
	As I understand it, this Bill is an attempt to further assist the authorities in preventing terrorism and protecting the people of this country from terrorist atrocities. I do not want to see two classes of terrorism in the Bill. But I want to ensure that there is adequate cover to deal with, and be ready for, the international terrorist.
	I hope that the Minister will say that Amendment No. 6 is already covered in the Bill. But I should like to be reassured that in the proscribing of organisations in Schedule 2 there is a bounden duty on the Secretary of State of the day to take note of terrorist organisations which are known throughout the world, which are active in other parts of the world, and which are occasionally listed by other governments, and to make the necessary decisions in the light of that serious appraisal. I beg to move.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I support the amendment. If we expect other countries to co-operate fully in the elimination of terrorism worldwide, we in the United Kingdom must transmit to foreign governments and foreign courts that we are clear-headed about the control of terrorism in our own territory and reassure them that we will co-operate with them in their efforts to eliminate it.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, it occurs to me that this amendment may not be entirely necessary. I say that because this country ratified a whole number of international covenants attempting to deal with international terrorism. Also, it would be impossible for the Secretary of State to list every organisation which has been involved in terrorism at some time or other and in some part of the world or another. The situation changes frequently and the list would quickly become out of date. That is my view.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I understand the object of the amendment. I am not sure that it is necessary because the Secretary of State's powers are already covered.
	I want to make a point that was mentioned in a previous debate; that is, that we are in a murky area when we focus upon acts of terrorism (as defined in the Bill) committed outside this country. One need only think of the ANC during the years of apartheid. Some of my best friends may be regarded as having been guilty of terrorism when they were struggling against the dictatorship of apartheid and found it necessary, with ideological or political motives, to engage in acts which fall within this definition.
	I pity the Secretary of State who, at some future date, may have to decide whether or not to add a foreign body, perhaps regarded as freedom fighters by some and terrorists by others, to the list. I can see that, even if we do not accept this amendment, there will be that kind of pressure on future Home Secretaries. I say simply that we are getting into murky waters, though that may be inevitable when one has a Terrorism Bill with extra-territorial scope.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, one does not need to go back in the past to the activities of the ANC to recognise where the difficulties mentioned by my noble friend arise. An example that occurs to me is the Sudan People's Liberation Army. We have dealings at an unofficial level with the SPLA. It is part of the process intended to lead to peace in Sudan between the government and the opposition, which has been demanding self-determination in the south. We have a certain amount of sympathy with those in the south who do not wish to be ruled by a fundamentalist and fanatical regime in Khartoum. Therefore we would not like to see such an organisation proscribed.
	I should like to know more about the way in which the powers are to be exercised. I can think of other organisations which we would like to have considered by the Secretary of State which are involved in acts of terrorism overseas with which we do not sympathise and where, in this country, the organisation is involved in fund-raising and the soliciting of support of a political kind. An example I gave at an earlier stage was the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Everybody knows that they collect money in this country. They have an organisation which explicitly claims to be a branch of the LTTE in London. They go round Tamil businesses asking for protection money. They make threats saying that people must subscribe to their cause. Obviously if we taxed them directly about it, they would say that they were collecting the money for the victims of war. One would have to go behind the collections to see what route the money took to produce the flow of weapons which undoubtedly sustains the conflict in northern Sri Lanka.
	So there are circumstances where it could be argued that the powers could be used to proscribe an organisation, and that we would be fulfilling our duty to combat international terrorism in that way. But there are other cases where the power should not be exercised because of the political situation in the country where acts which could fall within the definition of this Bill might be committed. I am therefore not entirely happy about leaving a power of this kind in the hands of a Home Secretary who can say in any specific case whether or not an organisation should be proscribed. He would have been given no guidelines by Parliament; in fact, he would have a perfectly free hand as to how proscription was to be carried out.
	Obviously, if it was the present Home Secretary, one would be quite happy as to the way in which the power would be exercised. But he will not be there for ever. This legislation will still be on the statute book when an entirely different government come into power. We do not legislate for the exercise of power by the people who are in office at the moment; we have to imagine that at some future date a far more authoritarian government might come into power who would have no sympathy with liberation movements overseas. That is why, to make the power as broad as it is in this Bill and not to place any restrictions on the exercise of it by the Secretary of State would be rather dangerous.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in the two instances he has given. As often happens, it is a question of one man's terrorist being another's freedom fighter. Nevertheless, I hope that some way will be found to recognise that we might have to take such action on new splinter groups of the IRA in the Republic of Ireland, which is another country. It is a problem which needs to be addressed. I agree entirely with the noble Lord on the other instances that he has given.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, we are worrying about the question of definition. Like the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I was brought up to believe that the English language is the richest language in the world. If we cannot define something, no one else can.
	Historically, there has been a strange change in the world. At one time we had enemies which were countries and military mights. Suddenly, those enemies were replaced with words ending in "ism"--fundamentalism, communism, terrorism. It would be very helpful to me if someone could define the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter.
	If one analyses the history of the Commonwealth, one finds that a very large proportion of the Commonwealth entered into a period of what may be defined as "terrorism", when the military were sent in to stabilise a situation, the key terrorist or freedom fighter was arrested, locked up for a while, let out, in democratic elections became head of state, and then appeared on the Commonwealth Christmas card.
	For those of us who have come across the Baader-Meinhof, the Brigate Rosse, the Shining Path, it is a matter of definition, but we seem always to end up with the word "fundamentalism". We seem to be seeking an enemy, but we need a definition. The definition used to be available through the Foreign Office. It was able to tell us the countries in which acceptable or unacceptable organisations existed. I am afraid that in British political history we have been as duplicitous as everyone else. One day someone is a terrorist, the next day he is an ally. It is the difference in definition of "freedom fighters" and "terrorism" which causes me concern.
	If it is not possible to incorporate it in the Bill, perhaps the Minister would be kind enough, if I write to him, to list the world organisations which the Government currently regard as terrorist and those which they currently regard as freedom fighters.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not sure that we would necessarily want to receive such a letter. As your Lordships are well aware and as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has pointed out, this Bill provides for the first time the power to proscribe organisations concerned in terrorism other than that connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. Throughout the whole process of this Bill your Lordships have quite rightly taken a very detailed interest in this proposal and have sought to examine in detail the Government's intentions in relation to its use.
	I do not believe that anyone has been more assiduous in this endeavour than the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Not only did he raise this issue in Committee on 16th May (Official Report, cols. 250-253) but he has also asked a series of detailed parliamentary Questions on the subject, which my noble friend Lord Bassam answered on 5th June (Official Report, WA cols. 121-122). My noble friend has again highlighted the issue by proposing this amendment today.
	Throughout the passage of the Bill we have said, first, that, we are considering which organisations concerned in international terrorism should be added to Schedule 2 and, secondly, that final decisions as to the content of the first order adding international terrorist organisations to Schedule 2 will not be made until the power to make the order is in force. That is because we need to take full account of the circumstances obtaining at that stage--in particular the security assessment.
	I am happy to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that, in exercising his powers to proscribe organisations, the Secretary of State will, of course, take account of all relevant information, including information available to him about organisations engaging in terrorist activities, as defined in this Bill, in countries other than the United Kingdom. I cannot go further than that. The effect of the noble Lord's amendment is that the Secretary of State will be obliged to consider every organisation throughout the world, which nobody would necessarily consider to be sensible. It is important, however, that I should give a reassurance about including information available to him concerning organisations engaging in terrorist activities in countries other than the United Kingdom.
	With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, we recognise that these are, in his description, "murky waters". We fully support people's right to peaceful protest, where there may be an oppressive regime at home. At the same time, however, we cannot allow the United Kingdom to be a safe haven for terrorists. In this respect, balance is very important.
	We have provided a number of safeguards, one of which is that the Attorney-General's consent would be required to prosecute any international cases. We fully recognise the sensitive issues which arise in relation to international cases. We agree that everyone has his own views on who should and should not be proscribed. The Secretary of State will have to consider cases very carefully. His order will have to be approved by an affirmative resolution procedure before anyone is proscribed.
	In the light of the reassurances that I have given, I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed explanation. I have also heard what noble Lords from the Liberal Democrat Benches have said. In the world in which we are now living, I feel that we can all trust our Home Secretaries of the day, from whatever party, to do what is right so far as terrorism is concerned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 5 [Deproscription: appeal]:

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 2, line 39, at end insert--
	("( ) Where an order has been made under section 3(3)(a), the organisation, or any person affected by the organisation's proscription, may appeal to the Commission.").

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I also speak to Amendments Nos. 7 to 10 and Amendment No. 31, which is consequential.
	The purpose of this group of amendments is to provide for the possibility of an appeal against the making of a proscription order. As the Bill now stands, an organisation which believes that it has been wrongly proscribed has to go through a wholly artificial process of applying for a deproscription order. If that order is refused, it can go through the appeal process to the proscribed organisation's appeal committee and, on a question of law, can to go a higher court, and indeed ultimately to the House of Lords.
	As the Bill now stands, if the appeal succeeds and as a result the organisation is deproscribed, any conviction for membership of that organisation and any forfeiture order made before the date on which the Secretary of State refused to deproscribe stands. So indeed does a conviction or order made where the urgency procedure under Clause 122(5) is used but the order lapses because it is not approved by both Houses of Parliament within 40 days.
	This creates a wholly irrational and improper legal situation. It means that even if, on the appeal against the Secretary of State's deproscription order, the appeal committee decides that the organisation ought never to have been proscribed in the first place, a conviction or forfeiture order made as a result of the proscription order would still remain valid.
	I introduced an amendment on the same subject at Committee stage which would have deferred the coming into force of the proscription order. I accept that that is not the best way of dealing with it. There may well be cases in which a proscription order should come into effect immediately. If that is not done, there is every likelihood of property disappearing before anyone can lay their hands on it, and there may be very considerable delays if the organisation fully exploits the possibility of delaying the procedure for appeals.
	The present amendment does not suspend the operation of the proscription order. However, it does provide for an appeal. As a consequence, if the appeal is allowed, or if the order falls because the urgency procedure has been used and the order is not approved within 40 days, the conviction or forfeiture order made in reliance on that proscription order is automatically quashed and ceases to have effect.
	It is surely absurd that a conviction or forfeiture order would be allowed to stand even though the proscription order has been made unreasonably or on the wrong legal basis. Further, the absence of any appeal provision for proscription orders is plainly in breach of natural justice. An organisation is being criminalised without being allowed to be heard in its own defence. I suggest that the fact that this artificial procedure of applying for a deproscription order is possible is no defence to the original breach of the right to natural justice. If an order is allowed to come into force before there is a decision on appeal, I see no reason for the Government to object to conferring a right of appeal against the original proscription order and many reasons why they should allow it. I beg to move.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, my name has been attached to these amendments and, therefore, I should like to add a few words to what my noble friend has said on the question of legislative method. When the Human Rights Act comes into force on 2nd October of this year, all existing and future legislation, including this Bill, must, as far as is possible, be read and given effect to in accordance with the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights.
	I should declare a professional interest here. As I am still in practice at the Bar, I suppose that I shall earn money arguing cases under the Human Rights Act. However, if it is possible to persuade the Government to make it fit on the face of the Bill, I should be happy not to earn my living by making this Act fit with convention rights. It seems to me to be in the interests of legal certainty and proportionality, if not in the interests of the legal profession, for us to get the Bill right at this stage.
	My noble friend Lord Goodhart referred to natural justice, which is embodied in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Thus there is European natural justice, as well as good old English natural justice. I believe it to be desirable to introduce a right of appeal for all the reasons given by my noble friend but, additionally, so as to avoid unnecessary conflict with convention rights. The last thing I should like to see is a court having to grant a declaration of incompatibility under Section 4 of the Human Rights Act because it was found impossible to read and give effect to Clause 5 in accordance with convention rights. I very much hope that those considerations will be taken into account, as well as those outlined by my noble friend Lord Goodhart.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it is most generous but characteristic of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to give up the opportunity of earning legal fees by pointing out that such a problem might arise and might ultimately come before the courts. I have some sympathy with the case put forward by the noble Lord and his noble friend. If these appeals are likely to arise in any event through an attempt to be deproscribed--presumably that can start immediately after the organisation concerned has been proscribed--it might be wise to provide for an appeal procedure in the first place.
	However, my caution in this respect arises from the fact that I do not wish to see a situation where some causes which in many cases are deeply offensive to people in this country give rise to a proscription being introduced in respect of a terrorist organisation. That, in turn, could be used as an excuse for an appeal hearing in which the terrorists or their representatives from overseas argue their case in this country in an attempt to justify their actions and thereby gain support. The Secretary of State and the Government could be placed in an awkward situation if we moved forward in the way suggested. But perhaps it is inevitable, given the appeal against a deproscription refusal and the background of the human rights legislation to which the noble Lord drew our attention. It is a dilemma.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, since our discussions on this part of the Bill in Committee, the Government have reflected further on the whole area of proscription. We have concluded that the Bill is right as it stands. I am happy to explain why this is the case, but I should say at the outset of my remarks that we remain unable to accept these amendments. There are two key proposals in these amendments: first, that the Bill should allow for a straight appeal against proscription, as opposed to an appeal against a refusal to deproscribe; and, secondly, that a safeguard should be built in against the abuse of the urgency procedure.
	Perhaps I may begin with the issue of appeal against proscription. As my noble friend Lord Bassam said in Committee, the system in the Bill has the advantage that, on receiving an application to deproscribe, the Secretary of State may choose to do so. That would avoid the need for a costly and perhaps lengthy appeal hearing. In explaining how we have arrived at the application, refusal, appeal process, I must emphasise that we are not starting from a blank sheet of paper. In Schedule 2 we have a list of organisations that are already proscribed and in some cases have been proscribed for many years.
	However, let us suppose that one of those organisations--perhaps rightly proscribed in the mid-1970s--were to turn away from terrorism at some point in the future. It could happen. In such a case, as my noble friend Lord Bassam said in Committee, an appeal against proscription would not produce the right result because the decision to proscribe was right at the time that it was made. The advantage of the system in the Bill is that the application requires the Secretary of State to make a fresh decision based on the up-to-date situation. It is his assessment at that point in time that is to be reviewed by the commission if the Secretary of State decides to refuse the application.
	In recognition of that line of argument, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said in Committee that there might be a time limit of between 14 and 28 days from the initial proscription during which the relevant organisation could appeal. That would not be helpful to any organisation which was concerned in terrorism when it was proscribed but which, more than a month later, changed its spots. In particular, it would not work at all for any of the organisations already listed in Schedule 2. Therefore, for those two categories we would have to retain the system of application, refusal and appeal against refusal for them. That would mean ending up with two parallel systems. As has been observed, the drafting of one system is already complex. Therefore, the drafting of two systems would greatly multiply those complexities. More importantly, as the additional system would work only for newly-proscribed groups, we would not be treating in the same way those organisations already included in Schedule 2 and those to be added to it at a later date. We see it as important that all organisations should be treated in the same way under the Bill.
	I have mentioned two practical reasons why we do not favour an appeal against proscription. We need to be able to deal with organisations that change their spots, so we need the application/refusal regime; and we need to treat all organisations in the same way, whether they are already listed in the schedule or are newly proscribed under the Bill. All groups should have the same avenues of appeal open to them. However, we reject the noble Lord's proposals, above all, because we believe them to be unnecessary.
	A power to proscribe organisations has been on the statute book in its present form for over 25 years. The Bill adds the important safeguard of the application, refusal, appeal mechanism. Any organisation in Schedule 2 can apply for deproscription at any time and can, under the system in the Bill, ultimately be deproscribed. That in itself is an effective remedy as far as the organisation is concerned.
	Of course there are further spin-offs of a proscribed organisations appeal commission (POAC) decision in an organisation's favour. Clauses 7, 8 and 29, together with paragraphs 10, 24 and 40 of Schedule 4, make provision for the consequences of a finding that the Secretary of State's refusal to deproscribe was unlawful. Such a finding means that on the date of that refusal the organisation should not have remained proscribed. It does not say anything about the lawfulness or otherwise of the original proscription of the organisation, or about the standing of the organisation before the refusal to deproscribe. Clause 7 therefore provides only that convictions relating to activity on or after the date of the refusal can be overturned.
	But the purpose of Clause 7 is not to signal that if you, as an individual, believe that your organisation should not be proscribed, you may carry on participating in the organisation's activities, in the hope of eventually getting the benefit of Clause 7. On the contrary, if an order proscribing the organisation has been made, the organisation is proscribed. You should dissociate yourself from the organisation, irrespective of the progress of any application or appeal.
	For these reasons, we see no need to provide for an appeal against proscription. The system of application, refusal and appeal treats all terrorist organisations the same: those that are already proscribed and any that may be proscribed in future. It is there to give organisations an effective remedy. It is not there to excuse those who choose to break the law.
	Perhaps I may turn now to the urgency procedure. I must first emphasise that this procedure is a necessary feature of the regime. Most of the entries which have been added to the list in recent times have been added using it. When a bomb goes off and is claimed by an organisation, an immediate proscription using the urgency procedure order immediately gives the police a valuable tool in pursuing the perpetrators and bringing them to justice. It is also an important way for the Secretary of State to express, in a very tangible way, society's abhorrence for that organisation's methods of pursuing its objectives (although the objectives themselves may be perfectly legitimate, of course).
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, suggested in Committee that the urgency procedure could lead to injustice because it would be possible to proscribe an organisation at five minutes' notice without the knowledge of the members of that organisation. This is a misunderstanding of the position.
	As your Lordships know, it is a general legal principle that, although ignorance of the law is not a defence, the law should be available to the citizen. So it would be quite wrong to make an order at 10 a.m. coming into force at 10.5 a.m. The right thing to do would be to provide for the order to come into force the next day. This will give time for the Government to publicise the proscription (which after all, is part of the reason for having the power) and to allow people to dissociate themselves from the organisation or to cease to participate in its activities.
	This has been the procedure in the past and I can assure your Lordships that this Government will continue to follow this approach in future. There is no question of using the power to "round up" people on the basis that they did not know that the organisation was proscribed. To return to a suggestion that was made in Committee, I do not therefore see any need to add the word "knowingly" to the membership offence.
	Subsection (5A) in Amendment No. 10 proposes that convictions should be annulled if an organisation is proscribed by the urgency procedure but Parliament withholds its consent--a point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in Committee. We have considered this matter carefully and we do not agree that such provision should be made.
	Once the Secretary of State has proscribed an organisation, membership of the organisation, fundraising for the organisation, and so on become criminal offences. Whatever happens when Parliament debates the order, for those 40 days that is the law, and we expect people to obey it. Every individual has choices to make. In the circumstances we are discussing, a member of the organisation has to decide whether to break the law or observe it. We do not think that it is too much to expect of an individual that he observe the law during those 40 parliamentary sitting days.
	It is true that if the organisation is removed from Schedule 2 by virtue of Clause 123(5)(b), a convicted person will not get the benefit of Clause 7. So a person cannot go on participating in the organisation's activities in the hope of appealing successfully and ultimately getting the benefit of Clause 7. But it is right that this should be the case.
	When the urgency procedure is used, it is right that Parliament should have the option of withholding its consent so that the order falls. From the point of view of the organisation that must be an acceptable outcome.
	But Parliament can and must be able to withhold its consent for any number of reasons. It follows that a failure of Parliament to endorse a proscription order is not the equivalent of a POAC ruling in the organisation's favour. In particular, it does not necessarily mean that at any time the organisation should not have been proscribed. From the point of view of the individual convicted of a proscription offence, therefore, the analogy with the POAC process breaks down.
	In the POAC scenario there is a finding that the refusal to deproscribe was flawed. In the urgency scenario there is no comparable finding. In both cases we consider that the individual has chosen to break the law, but we recognise that where POAC has made a favourable determination, convictions should not necessarily stand.
	It has been suggested that this power could be abused. It is a very heavy power. We have acknowledged this repeatedly and we make no apology for it. But for the reasons I have given, we believe that the urgency procedure, in the form proposed in the Bill, is necessary. We believe that the safeguards we have provided are correct and sufficient; and so, through the Bill, we are asking Parliament to trust the Secretary of State with this powerful tool in the fight against terrorism.
	The Bill before your Lordships this afternoon is an important Bill and proscription is an important power. The amendments which have been tabled have probed the workings of this power in detail, and have caused us to think long and hard about whether we have the detail right. The Government believe that the drafting of these powers and procedures is right. I apologise for the length of my reply but the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, are important. In the light of the explanations I have given, I sincerely hope that those noble Lords who have tabled amendments will agree to withdraw them.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I found the noble and learned Lord's reply extremely depressing and unsatisfactory. I do not think that any of his arguments supported the position which he has taken. First, he said that the fact at present that you have to apply for a deproscription order means that the Secretary of State may change his mind, decide to make a deproscription order, and that that makes the procedure cheaper and simpler. Where an appeal is allowed, if the Secretary of State comes to the conclusion that he ought not to have made the order in the first place--perhaps as a result of new evidence which is shown to him--it is perfectly possible for him to indicate that he would not oppose the appeal. If he does so, any additional costs of the appeal would be absolutely minimal. Therefore, I do not see that there is any substance in saying that this procedure is cheaper.
	Secondly, it is said that the appeal against a proscription order would not be appropriate because it would create two parallel systems and a multiplication of complexities. This is simply not true. The legislative complexity will be minimal, as seen from the fact that the amendments which I have drafted, and which I believe would be adequate for the purpose, take up no more than a few lines of text. So far as procedure is concerned, there is no reason why any different procedure should be followed before the POAC in the case of an appeal against the original proscription order from the procedure which would be followed in the case of an appeal against a refusal to deproscribe.
	Thirdly, the noble and learned Lord said that it was appropriate for all organisations to be treated in the same way. That, again, seems to me to be a wholly irrelevant issue. The fact is that we have a number of organisations which have been proscribed, which could have appealed against a refusal to deproscribe, and have not done so. It seems to me that that is no argument whatsoever for depriving any future organisations which may be proscribed of the right to appeal against a proscription order.
	Finally, and particularly, the noble and learned Lord said that this amendment was not necessary because the right to apply for deproscription was a sufficient remedy.
	First, there is the point raised by my noble friend Lord Lester in regard to the Human Rights Act. That Act is not yet in force but will no doubt come into operation before this Bill becomes law.
	There is also the question that proscription orders are now likely to be made against organisations whose main focus of activities is overseas. Those activities perhaps will be less familiar to the authorities in this country than the activities of those organisations which take part in terrorism in Northern Ireland, and therefore a more extensive look at the evidence may well be extremely important.
	It seems to me there is a real difference of substance between a "change of spots" case and a case where an organisation should never have been proscribed in the first place. The present procedure will require an organisation, by applying for a deproscription order, in effect to admit that it was a terrorist organisation in order to be released from proscription.
	I am very tempted to seek to divide the House on this important issue. The Government have been wholly unable to produce any convincing arguments to support the refusal of an appeal, with all that that means in terms of natural justice. However, this is something which can and probably will be dealt with under the Human Rights Act--if a case arises. I am therefore prepared to leave the Government to face the consequences of the Human Rights Act. With great reluctance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 not moved.]
	Clause 12 [Support]:

Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: My Lords, within this group, if government Amendment No. 12 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 13 owing to pre-emption.

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 11:
	Page 7, line 9, leave out paragraph (c).

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, at Committee stage we objected to paragraph (c) of Clause 12(2) and paragraph (b) of subsection (3). Of these the more important of the two was subsection (3)(b), which provided that a person committed an offence if he addressed a meeting and knew that the meeting was,
	"to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation".
	That would have made it an offence for a person to address such a meeting, even if his or her reason for addressing the meeting was to express their fundamental opposition to the activities of the proscribed organisation. For that reason I welcome, without reservation, government Amendment No. 12, which removes subsection (3)(b) and renders unnecessary my Amendment No. 13.
	However, that still leaves subsection (2)(c), and we have some concerns about that. I have no objection to providing that it is an offence for a person to arrange a meeting to support a proscribed organisation or to further the activities of a proscribed organisation. However, the question of making it illegal to arrange a meeting which is to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation is something which one needs to look at very carefully.
	In subsection (4) a "meeting" is defined as,
	"a meeting of three or more persons, whether or not the public are admitted".
	So potentially one is not looking at a public meeting but simply a meeting of a group which has been called for a specific purpose and for some discussion.
	But what would happen if, let us say, an organisation in this country were to arrange a meeting here between the Tamil Tigers organisation--assuming that it had been proscribed--and the Government of Sri Lanka, with a view to trying to settle the violence, the civil war effectively, in Sri Lanka? It would be most inappropriate if the arrangement of any such meeting were to be treated as a criminal offence. The Government may wish to say that a round-table conference of this kind does not involve anyone addressing a meeting--that it is a matter of discussion--but I have difficulty seeing that as a certain defence to a prosecution under the subsection.
	It seems to me that Clause 12(2)(c) is still potentially objectionable because it covers meetings arranged for wholly praiseworthy purposes. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I support government Amendment No. 12 for the reasons already given. It is somewhat better drafted than the Liberal Democrat Amendment No. 13, and no more needs to be said about that.
	I also strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in regard to Amendment No. 11. It is funny to think that if this Bill had been enacted in its present form 30 years ago, the long arm of the law might have descended on the shoulders of certain Cabinet Ministers--both Labour and Conservative--during all their cosy, secret chats with the Provisional IRA in Downing Street and elsewhere.
	On a more general point, is it not a good thing that terrorists, or apologists for terrorism, should be encouraged to try and justify themselves in front of a sceptical or hostile audience? If the audience in question were not sceptical or hostile but supportive and enthusiastic, then the organisers of the meeting would be caught by subsection (2)(a) and, in certain circumstances, by subsection (2)(b) as well. So there is no danger on that score.
	For that reason, and the reasons advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I hope that the House will support the amendment.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the amendment stands in my name as well as that of my noble friend Lord Goodhart. I simply add two points.
	The marginal note to Clause 12 is "Support". The whole thrust of these offences--which are punishable on conviction on indictment by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years--is that in some way they are to do with supporting terrorism. We welcome what has been said and the fact that the Government have decided to delete Clause 12(3)(b)--no doubt because they appreciate, on consideration, that someone may be guilty of an offence under that provision without in any way supporting the aims of the proscribed organisation--but exactly the same applies to Clause 12(2)(c). In arranging, managing or assisting in arranging or managing a small meeting, the fact that one knows it is,
	"to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation",
	does not automatically mean that one has any support at all for the aims of that organisation. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, indicated, one might be utterly opposed to everything that organisation stands for. Therefore, surely logic and principle suggest that symmetry and consistency should be demonstrated in the Government's approach. Given the decision to delete Clause 12(3)(b), one must ask what on earth is the reason for keeping in place Clause 12(3)(c).
	Finally--I promise that I shall not repeat this too often--it seems to me that Clause 12(2)(c), as applied, could create serious difficulties under the Human Rights Act as regards convention rights governing speech and association. I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept the amendment.

Lord Desai: My Lords, in the debate on Second Reading I expressed my worries about certain aspects of the Bill. I have many academic colleagues who study terrorism as a subject. Much of the knowledge we have acquired about Hezbollah, the IRA, the Tamil Tigers or any other such group is the result of study undertaken by academics, who also make it their business either to meet with representatives of those organisations or, sometimes, to invite them to present a seminar at a university. I can easily imagine my colleagues in the Department of International Relations at the London School of Economics arranging such events.
	First, it would be very wrong to assume that my colleagues, by inviting such people to address seminars at the LSE, are in some way sympathising with or supporting the activities of a terrorist organisation. Secondly, unless we allow academics to continue with their work on these rather obscure topics, the Government themselves will have access to far less information about the extent of terrorism. Their own information-gathering systems are insufficient for the task.
	A great many academics pursue these topics out of a desire for academic knowledge. It is important that such activities, based on a sincere desire to further knowledge and understanding, should not be stopped. I should not wish to see my colleagues go to gaol.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, it is not only academics who might fall foul of the provisions of the Bill. Members of your Lordships' House or those of another place might be similarly affected if they undertook meetings for the same purposes.
	When considering certain organisations which function only overseas, it must be remembered that those governments themselves engage in dialogue. For example, officials at the Foreign Office held a meeting to discuss Plan Colombia, a £1,600 million dollar programme being launched by the United States in an effort to assist the Colombian Government in combating terrorism and the trafficking of narcotics. One element of that effort is the need to deal with the FARC. That is an armed organisation which opposes the government and controls a large section of Colombian territory. Noble Lords may have seen the details of this in the review section of yesterday's Guardian. A two-page article reported on the so-called Farclandia which is controlled by these terrorists--for that is what they are according to the definition in the Bill. However, they are terrorists with whom the Colombian Government must deal. Over the past few years, President Pastrana has been trying hard to agree a formula of some kind whereby those terrorists can be drawn back into the political process.
	Would it not be nonsensical, therefore, to declare that interested parties in this country would be unable to engage in such a process? According to the provisions of the Bill, it would be impossible to invite representatives of the FARC to come here and hold talks with a gathering of MPs or noble Lords to investigate how that peace process might operate and whether the United Kingdom would be able to play a part in it.
	The subsection which my noble friend seeks to delete will inhibit the United Kingdom from playing any role in the solution of crises and internal armed conflicts in many other parts of the world.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I have been unable to take part in the proceedings on the Bill until now because of my committee work and because I have had to be out of the country.
	I should like to express my welcome for government Amendment No. 12, as well as to support Amendment No. 11. In today's world, it is of key importance that we address the challenges of modern conflict resolution. Conflict resolution is all about talking, all about discussion and all about persuasion. Quite clearly, if we do not permit meetings to be held which may be set up in an effort to persuade those allied closely to proscribed organisations away from them, then we shall be heading up the wrong track, leading to even longer conflicts than is presently the case.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was the first to acknowledge that the Government have moved in this area. However, we cannot move quite as far as the noble Lord would like to take us. Having said that, we are of course impressed by the arguments that have been put from all sides of the House.
	Perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 13, which the noble Lord has intimated that he will not later move because he has accepted government Amendment No. 12. Both amendments seek to remove the offence of addressing a meeting which a person knows is to be addressed by,
	"a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation".
	We believe that this offence would help to deprive terrorist organisations of the oxygen of publicity, but we also recognise the concerns that have been raised both in this House and in another place, as well as elsewhere. We take those concerns seriously and have decided, after careful thought, to remove the offence from the Bill.
	As regards the proposal contained in Amendment No. 11 tabled by the noble Lord, we do not see such a strong case--I am choosing my words carefully--for removing Clause 12(2)(b). We are of the view that the offence of arranging or managing a meeting, knowing that it is to be addressed by a person who belongs to or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation, is qualitatively different from the offence of "addressing" which we have now decided to drop.
	The activity of "addressing" a meeting raises issues of freedom of speech in a rather more direct way than that of "arranging" a meeting. At the same time, "arranging" or "managing" requires a positive intention to help the speaker from the proscribed organisation in a way that "addressing" perhaps may not.
	That would be the case even if the meeting is to be held predominantly for another purpose altogether. Even if it was known that a member of a proscribed organisation intended to speak on a subject unconnected with the organisation itself, we think that there is a possibility that such a meeting could be hijacked by the member of the proscribed organisation.
	I hardly need to remind noble Lords that the point of proscription is to deprive terrorist organisations of any spurious legitimacy which they may claim. We believe that such organisations should not be given a platform. For that reason, people should not arrange or manage a meeting for them to address. We think that the offence should remain in place.
	However, we have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out by way of his example. It is a difficult issue and the Government acknowledge that. We would say that Crown immunity would of course apply and that, perhaps more significantly in this field--it arises elsewhere in the Bill--consent must be given for a prosecution before such a prosecution can be put in train. That decision would lie either with the Director of Public Prosecutions or, as we shall debate later, with the Attorney-General. That is something of a safeguard in response to the example referred to by the noble Lord.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, that point was made by the Home Secretary in another place. He recognised the threat to free speech posed by this provision, but stated that the safeguard lay in the discretion to be given to the prosecuting authorities, who would exercise that discretion sensibly. Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Since we are not dealing here with the oxygen of publicity in the sense of a public meeting, but rather a much smaller form of meeting, surely we run the danger of introducing a feeling of great uncertainty if it were simply left to a future discretionary decision on a very serious criminal offence?
	Would it not be more sensible to achieve legal certainty and proportionality now by deleting this provision, thus ensuring that freedom of speech could not be chilled in a way that would clearly breach Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights? We cannot leave this to prosecutorial discretion because of that chilling effect. Can the Minister take that into account and think again on the matter?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I would say to the noble Lord that the oxygen of publicity--the phrase that is used so often--can apply as much to a small private meeting which "gets out", as it were, into the public world as to an orthodox public meeting.
	However, we concede that there is a problem here. We do not want to go as far as saying that to call a public meeting and invite a member of a proscribed organisation should be lawful, but we should like to consider between now and Third Reading whether there is a way round the dilemma which has been set for us by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. He talked about, for example, a meeting organised perhaps by HMG here between a terrorist group and a national government of another country, with the sole purpose of trying to bring them together. I think that was the example he gave. I hope he will understand that I cannot promise anything, but we should like to consider the point he has made.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, has it occurred to the noble Lord the Minister, as it did to me, that perhaps noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches should have proposed an amendment which is rather different from the one they have moved, which would delete the words,
	"a meeting of three or more persons"
	and insert "public meeting", or some phrase to that effect. That seemed to be what lay behind much of their concern.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, could I ask the Minister to explain why we have no prohibition on talking to the press? Years ago we had such a prohibition on the IRA or other terrorists talking to the press. That was a public platform, and really in the case of this amendment it is very much less of a public platform than appearing on television. Therefore I would still like to see this amendment accepted, whereby such people should be allowed to talk to controlled audiences in the right circumstances.

Lord Bach: My Lords, obviously, anything that the noble Viscount says on these matters is taken very seriously by the Government, but I have to say that what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has suggested as a possible amendment is again something we should like to look at and see whether it could satisfy all parties here, together with the legitimate question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I hope that in the meantime he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am of course grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has said about the possible reconsideration of Clause 12(2)(c). We take the view that it is acceptable to come back with a more limited amendment. It could be argued that simply removing Clause 12(2)(c) would be too broad. Our intention will be that, to be on the safe side, we ourselves will draft a rather narrower amendment and bring it back for consideration on Third Reading, in case the Government think better of bringing back an amendment of their own. Taking that into account, in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 7, line 13, leave out from ("activities") to end of line 15.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
	Clause 19 [Disclosure of information: duty]:

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 14:
	Page 9, line 12, at end insert ("other than journalism").

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this is a very simple and brief amendment but it raises a very important issue. Clauses 15 to 18 create a number of offences. Basically, those offences are concerned with fund-raising and money laundering for terrorist purposes. Clause 19 requires that anyone who suspects someone else of committing an offence under Clauses 15 to 18 should report their suspicions to the police if those suspicions are based on information which has come to them in the course of a trade, profession, business or employment. Failure to report those suspicions to the police is a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment of up to five years.
	It is obvious that this clause is mainly directed to financial businesses or professions, such as banks and accountants, which are likely to be able to see from the audit of their books or accounts that money has been coming in in circumstances which make it likely that it is for terrorist purposes, or else the money is being laundered. We have no objection to the clause in so far as it affects banks, accountants and so on but, as drafted, this clause extends to journalists as well, and we very strongly object to that. That objection, I believe, is shared very widely by the media. Certainly I have received letters from the Society of Editors and a joint letter on behalf of the BBC, ITN, ITV and Channel 4, objecting to the restrictions on journalism.
	I believe there are two reasons why extending Clause 19 to journalism is wrong. First, it inhibits freedom of speech or, as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights put it,
	"the right to seek and impart information".
	The importance of journalism is indeed specifically recognised in the Human Rights Act.
	Secondly, we believe that the extension of Clause 19 to journalism will be counterproductive. Investigative journalism can be useful. Press investigation into terrorist fund-raising can be helpful to the Government, but plainly it will be inhibited by this clause. What will happen if the clause is enacted as it stands? No journalists will be prepared to investigate terrorist fund-raising on the basis that they will have to tell the police how they got their story, who it came from and what was said by whom about whom. Journalists may either refuse to pass that information on to the police and risk prosecution under Clause 19 or, more likely perhaps, they will refuse to investigate and report on terrorist fund-raising. Either way, the police will get no useful information.
	It is true that Clause 19 allows a "reasonable excuse" defence but the history of decisions in the courts of this country show that protection of sources is not likely to be regarded as a reasonable excuse. I also recognise that Clause 19 is based upon a section of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which does not exclude journalists. However, we are now replacing that Act with permanent legislation and that gives us a chance to think again. There is no presumption that Clause 19 should be identical with a previous section of an Act.
	I believe that the application of Clause 19 to journalists inhibits freedom of speech. I believe that the application of this clause to journalists will confer no benefit on the police or on the Government. They will get no information which they would not otherwise have received. I believe that the application of Clause 19 to journalists does not advance the main purpose of the clause, which is directed to obtaining financial information from banks, accountants and other similar businesses and professions. It is not necessary for the protection of a democratic society. I believe that there is an overwhelming case for excluding journalists from the operation of Clause 19. I beg to move.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, perhaps I may add a couple of words in support. This is, as my noble friend has said, an extremely important matter. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, may remember that during the passage of the Human Rights Bill the press made an enormous fuss about the potential threat, as they saw it, in the Human Rights Bill to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and his colleagues very wisely decided collectively on including a media clause in the Human Rights Act that would give enhanced protection to freedom of speech.
	At one stage in my career I acted in a case which challenged the broadcasting ban on Sinn Fein, where we had the conflicting interests of national security on the one hand and freedom of speech on the other. The Law Lords were unable to give direct effect to the free speech guarantee in Article 10 of the convention because it had not been incorporated into our domestic law.
	The Government have now incorporated the convention directly into our law and, to quote my old colonel when I was in the Army, I would bet the Bank of England against a blood orange that if there were a challenge in an actual case by journalists under this clause the court would have to re-read this provision compatibly with Article 10 of the convention in the particular case. Again, it means more money for my profession, and it is quite pointless. An exception of this kind achieves legal certainty, proportionality and the freedom of the press without causing any serious harm to any facet of the public interest. Therefore, we very much hope that the Government will accept this modest but crucial amendment.

Lord Desai: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is extremely important. As I have often said, I have colleagues who do similar things for the sake of knowledge. That knowledge is useful for society, and even for preventing terrorism. But if, in the course of acquiring it, journalists are to be prosecuted, that will be a great blow.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as was explained in Committee, we do not support a specific exemption for journalists from the reporting requirement in Clause 19. The clause replicates an existing provision which in effect makes it an offence not to give information about, for example, fund-raising for proscribed organisations.
	As was said in Committee, we fully accept the integrity and professionalism of the journalistic profession as a whole and of individual journalists. But with that integrity and professionalism must also go a degree of responsibility to society. It is a matter, as ever, of striking the right balance.
	We believe it is important to retain the old Section 18A of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and this is the provision now replicated in Clause 19 of the Bill. We regard this as an essential provision of permanent counter-terrorist legislation.
	Of course, the Government recognise that the journalistic profession takes its responsibilities extremely seriously. But your Lordships will understand, I am sure, that to provide a specific exemption for journalists would leave a potential loophole in this essential provision. It would also carry a risk of making it easier to launder terrorist finance through press and media companies, a result which I am sure noble Lords would not intend.
	I do not accept the accusation made in Committee that our approach shows that we do not understand how journalism works. This is not about how journalism works. It is about how terrorism works.
	As has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, there is the "reasonable excuse" defence in Clause 19(3). That is an important safeguard in relation to this provision. How it will work in relation to journalism is a matter to be decided in each individual case.
	Perhaps I may go further in offering reassurances to the journalistic profession as to our intention in the Bill as a whole. We have had various representations from various parts of the media expressing concern that a number of provisions in the Bill will inhibit the legitimate reporting of the media on matters to do with terrorism. These concerns have been expressed not only in the area of reporting requirements, which we have just discussed, but also in relation to the "collection of information" offence in Clause 58 and to the investigatory powers in Schedule 5.
	We have been asked on a number of occasions whether anything in the present wording of the Bill is intended to alter the balance between, on the one hand, the vital responsibility of a government to protect their citizens from terrorism and, on the other, the freedom of expression of the media in the reporting on, and scrutiny of, these groups.
	The answer is that all the provisions in the Bill which are of particular concern to journalists are directly modelled on provisions in existing legislation. Indeed, Section 18 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which is also of concern, is repealed by the Bill. The provisions which are replicated by the Bill will need to be read with the new definition of terrorism in Clause 1, which, unlike that in the existing legislation, extends to all forms of terrorism.
	However, I should like to emphasise that, other than ensuring that an equivalent provision is in place to deal with all forms of terrorism, it is certainly not the intention of the Government that anything in this Bill should change the current balance between the freedom of expression that the British media enjoy and the responsibility to assist in combating terrorism. With those assurances, I very much hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him two questions. Am I right in recollecting that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, specifically recommended in his report against retaining this offence in relation to journalism? I do not have the report in front of me but that is my recollection.
	Secondly, the Minister referred to the defence of "reasonable excuse". How does that fit with Article 10 of the European human rights convention as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights in the Goodwin case where the court emphasised that the confidentiality of sources of journalists was fundamental to the freedom of the press? Is it the Government's view that the effect of Clause 19(3) is intended to be that, where the press has confidential sources, that confidence must be upheld and respected by the courts and therefore must constitute a reasonable excuse. If that is not the position, how are we complying with the Goodwin judgment in framing an offence of this character which puts the burden of proof not upon the state but upon the newspaper to prove a reasonable excuse?
	This matter is of vital importance to the press because of the chilling effect that it will otherwise have on freedom of speech. It will certainly very much affect my view to know the answers to these questions: first in relation to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and secondly, what brief the Minister has in relation to compatibility with the convention rights, especially in regard to the Goodwin case and confidentiality of sources. I am deliberately speaking slowly so that these points may be fully considered.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the point relating to the report of the inquiry into legislation against terrorism chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. I do not think that I am in a position to agree with the noble Lord that he did recommend an exception in relation to journalists. I am told that his recommendation was in relation to Section 18 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. We are not dealing with that section; as I understand it, it has been repealed. So I do not think the position is as the noble Lord recalls it. Perhaps I may write to him on this point.
	So far as concerns "reasonable excuse" and its relationship to the Goodwin case, we believe that Clause 19 does not offend against the convention. "Reasonable excuse" is plainly one part of that. It will be one part of the way in which the section operates. I do not know what was the significance of "betting a blood orange", but it seems to us that, looked at overall, including the "reasonable excuse" defence, the clause complies with the convention.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but I am still in the dark. The offence is committed if the newspaper does not disclose to the police certain information which has come to the attention of the newspaper in the course of following its profession of journalism. The provision therefore imposes a severe criminal penalty on freedom of expression and in a way that would require the disclosure of confidential information unless there were "reasonable excuse" for not doing so. Respectfully, therefore, I repeat the question. Is it the Government's intention that the confidentiality of sources will be overridden? If so, how does that comply with the Goodwin case?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, one must look at the whole of Clause 19, including subsection (3). The noble Lord selects the beginning of the clause but does not look at it as a whole or its background.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I regret that I have not been persuaded by the response of the noble and learned Lord. He was unable to point to any real reason why the Government or police should obtain a benefit from including journalists within Clause 19. The idea that a loophole will be created by excluding journalists is wholly fanciful. Journalism does not involve itself in money-laundering. Therefore, if nominally a journalist organisation goes in for money-laundering that is not an activity that it undertakes in the course of the trade, profession or business of journalism. That means that it will not be caught anyway under Clause 19 unless a particular organisation can be regarded as carrying on some other business.
	Be that as it may, we on these Benches regard Clause 19, in so far as it applies to journalists, as a serious infringement of freedom of speech and the press. That being so, we believe that it is appropriate to seek the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 145.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 35 [Duration]:
	[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
	Clause 40 [Terrorist: interpretation]:
	[Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 not moved.]

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 20:
	After Clause 64, insert the following new clause--
	("Inferences and forfeiture orders
	:TITLE3:INFERENCES: OFFENCES UNDER THIS PART
	(" .--(1) This section applies where a person is charged with an offence under this Part.
	(2) Subsection (4) applies where evidence is given that--
	(a) at any time before being charged with the offence the accused, on being questioned under caution by a constable, failed to mention a fact which is material to the offence and which he could reasonably be expected to mention, and
	(b) before being questioned the accused was permitted to consult a solicitor.
	(3) Subsection (4) also applies where evidence is given that--
	(a) on being charged with the offence or informed by a constable that he might be prosecuted for it the accused failed to mention a fact which is material to the offence and which he could reasonably be expected to mention, and
	(b) before being charged or informed the accused was permitted to consult a solicitor.
	(4) Where this subsection applies--
	(a) the court, in considering any question whether the accused is guilty of an offence under this Part, may draw from the failure inferences relating to that question, but
	(b) the accused shall not be committed for trial, be found to have a case to answer or be convicted solely on the basis of the inferences.
	(5) Subject to any directions by the court, evidence tending to establish the failure may be given before or after evidence tending to establish the fact which the accused is alleged to have failed to mention.").

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, in moving the amendment, with the leave of the House I speak also to Amendment No. 21. The amendment is based on Clauses 108 to 111 which form part of Part VII, relating to Northern Ireland. I propose that the redrafted Clauses 109 and 111 should be inserted after Clause 64.
	As drafted at present, Clauses 108 to 111 apply,
	"where a person is charged with an offence under section 11".
	Clause 11 states:
	"A person commits an offence if he belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation".
	In the light of that the individual is considered to be a serious terrorist and comes within the provisions of Clauses 108 to 111. For the purposes of the amendment, I speak only to Clauses 109 and 111. Clauses 108 to 111 refer to proscribed organisations and persons belonging to them.
	However, terrorism is more than proscribed organisations or organisations which might be proscribed. There may well be individuals who are per se terrorists. They do not necessarily have allegiances or alliances, other than perhaps the odd financial contract, to any of the world's terrorist organisations. Those individuals could be specialists in a specific field. They could specialise in doing extraordinary things on the cybernet. They could be specialists in communication activities of a sophisticated nature. They could be specialist murderers. In any sense of the word, they are terrorists.
	I inquired in the Public Bill Office as to how an individual terrorist as opposed to a terrorist organisation could come within the scope of the Bill. It did not appear that he did. Therefore we propose this amendment which inserts the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List--I shall not read it; noble Lords have had the amendment for a day or two--after Clause 64, at the end of Part VI. Part VI relates to terrorist offences committed, presumably, by individuals. Clause 54 states:
	"A person commits an offence if he provides instruction or training in the making or use of"--
	and there follows a list. Part VI lays down how an individual commits a terrorist offence under the Bill. That is good.
	One of the issues about which I feel strongly is that we should not be talking about two or three different classes of terrorists. Part VII is an anomaly: it refers only to Northern Ireland or Irish terrorism. The Bill protects this nation against international terrorism from wherever it may come until such time as your Lordships and another place amend it or pass another Bill. I am anxious that because of inhibitions with regard to human rights, and so on, the Bill will not be strong enough; that we shall leave loopholes and will not make the best use of our experiences in particular in Northern Ireland, spilling over into this country, in legislating against terrorism.
	Clauses 109 and 111--they are rewritten in the amendment--are extremely useful and valuable in the fight against terrorism; otherwise they would not have been in the Bill in the first place. I can see no reason why Clauses 109 and 111 should apply to proscribed organisations and those within them but that another law should apply to those outwith currently proscribed organisations. That is mainly why I move the amendment.
	When fighting terrorism, the terrorist knows no bounds. There is no Geneva Convention. Virtually no rules are accepted. We need to ensure that the security forces--they may be the police or specialist forces--have all the weaponry at their disposal that we can give them.
	I can see occasions on which these provisions could be most useful. One of the most difficult things to do to a skilled terrorist, a specialist of the type at which the provisions might be aimed, is to arrest him. Unless one can operate within a Bill such as this, one must have evidence, a reason, for the arrest. I believe that if the amendment is agreed, your Lordships will have improved the Bill and increased the protection that it is able to give to the people of this nation against terrorism. I beg to move.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, we hope that the Government will not be in favour of the amendments. One of the changes that the Government have made to the Bill, which we welcome, relates to Clause 118. They have placed the legal burden of proof on the prosecution; it must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In doing so, they have made it clear that the Bill will fully comply with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the presumption of innocence and the privilege against self incrimination, commonly referred to as the right of silence.
	The effect of the amendments is to permit the drawing of inferences in relation to offences in Part VI as a result of a failure to mention material facts during questioning. If the amendments were accepted, apart from the complex burdens they would place upon judges and juries in attempting to give effect to them, they would create serious inroads into the right to a fair trial, including the presumption of innocence and the privilege against self incrimination.
	Of course we all want to use effective means to combat terrorism, but one means that none of us wants to see introduced is a means that results in unfair trials, the miscarriage of justice and the kind of disrepute into which the criminal justice system would no doubt be brought if there were miscarriages of justice. For those reasons, we hope that the Government will not be in favour of the amendments because in our view they would be incompatible with the Convention rights under Article 6.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I want to make one brief point. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that, given the numerical increase in the number of terrorist groupings and then the further splintering of those organisations, we need to consider his amendment. I fear that we are about to enter a phase in which terrorists will be operating on a do-it-yourself, solo basis motivated by a grudge not against political parties, nations or governments but against someone of their own religious view. I have known of such cases and I am concerned about the numbers multiplying.
	It is not even a case of being able to say, "Where two or three are gathered together", as is said in the Prayer Book. There does not need to be two or three; just someone with a burning desire to get at someone else. Whether there is one solo person or whether there are two or three people, we can be assured that they will be accorded a suitable title--the title which they claim themselves--whether Continuity or Real IRA.
	However, I am afraid that the number of such organisations will multiply because there is money to be made. We have seen it happen in drug dealing and so forth and there are rich pickings for people who have the means--one or two guns--and the expertise which they obtained when serving in the larger organisations. They can pose a very real threat to society and to government. We need to project our thinking forward and to take the necessary measures. I can think of no better vehicle than this Bill which the Government have brought forward.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the amendment would bring two of the "post-Omagh" provisions into Part VI of the Bill. The provisions referred to as "post-Omagh" were introduced in the special Sitting in the summer of 1998 in the wake of the Omagh atrocity in August that year. My noble and learned friend the Attorney-General described the post-Omagh provisions as pushing the law to its limits. We believe that we were justified in pushing the law to its limits and that we are justified in continuing to do so in order to deal with those people who still oppose the peace process.
	However, we believe that those provisions remain necessary in response to that particular threat. As your Lordships are aware, they have been placed in Part VII of the Bill. That means that they extend only to Northern Ireland and that they are time-limited to five years, during which time they must be annually renewed by Parliament. We believe that that is the right balance.
	We do not therefore support the inclusion of these provisions in the permanent UK-wide part of the Bill. They are a carefully targeted response to the particular problem of organisations opposed to the peace process in Northern Ireland. We see no basis on which they should be applied to other offences in the Bill. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, perhaps I may respond on behalf of the Opposition. The noble and learned Lord quoted his noble and learned friend as saying that these provisions push the law to its limits. However, he correctly stated that the Government are prepared to do so only as regards Northern Ireland, implying that Northern Ireland terrorism is worse than and different from other forms of terrorism in other parts of the world. But a large part of the point of the Bill is to extend the Northern Ireland laws against terrorism to the whole of the UK. It is to take the legal lessons that we have learnt in fighting terrorism in Northern Ireland and to apply them to the undoubted growth of terrorism in the rest of the world in respect of other causes.
	We all know of the difficulty of obtaining convictions in Northern Ireland. There are two reasons for that. The first is the intimidation of jurors and witnesses which led to the Diplock courts. The second is the ability of trained terrorists to resist the legal process; to resist the police in their interrogations and to use every part of the law in favour of their case. Those are the lessons that we have learnt in fighting terrorism in Northern Ireland. It therefore seems to us right that Amendment No. 20, which is based on Clause 109, should extend to the other serious offences in Part VI.
	Amendment No. 21 is based on Clause 111 and deals with the forfeiture of money and property as discussed on previous occasions. Again, in relation to the very serious offences dealt with in Part VI, we believe that the provisions should apply to all kinds of terrorist and not only to those in Northern Ireland. If we are to learn the lessons of Northern Ireland in dealing with all types of terrorism in the world, then those provisions form part of the lessons. I believe that the House should support my noble friend Lord Glentoran in Amendment No. 20.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 163.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 21.
	After Clause 64, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:FORFEITURE ORDERS: OFFENCES UNDER THIS PART
	(" .--(1) This section applies if a person is charged with an offence under this Part.
	(2) The court by or before which the person is convicted may order the forfeiture of any money or other property if--
	(a) he had it in his possession or under his control at the time of the offence, and
	(b) it has been used in connection with the alleged offence under this Part or the court believes that it may be used in that connection unless it is forfeited.
	(3) Before making an order under this section the court must give an opportunity to be heard to any person, other than the convicted person, who claims to be the owner of or otherwise interested in anything which can be forfeited under this section.
	(4) A question arising as to whether subsection (1) or (2)(a) or (b) is satisfied shall be determined on the balance of probabilities.
	(5) Schedule 4 shall apply (with the necessary modifications) in relation to orders under this section as it applies in relation to orders made under section 23.").

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 21) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 156.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 107 [Specified organisations: interpretation]:

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 22:
	Page 51, line 5, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, Amendment No. 22 is part of the legislation on specified organisations within Part VII. Again, it seems to me that Clause 107(a) and (b) sets up three classes of terrorist. One is either a terrorist under Section 3(8) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 or a terrorist proscribed for the purposes of this Act in Schedule 2 or a terrorist who comes under both those provisions because Clause 107 states that an organisation is a terrorist organisation if,
	"it is specified under section 3(8) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, and (b) it is, or forms part of, an organisation which is proscribed for the purposes of this Act".
	I can see absolutely no logic in that wording. As I have said several times today, a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist; a terrorist organisation is a terrorist organisation is a terrorist organisation. All are a severe threat to this kingdom and the people within it and all should be treated equally severely. We should legislate to give the authorities the necessary powers to protect us.
	In my opinion, Clause 107 would be much more sensible, reasonable and logical if it read that,
	"it is specified under section 3(8) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, or ... it is, or forms part of, an organisation which is proscribed for the purposes of this Act".
	That means that the organisation is either specified or proscribed but either way it is a terrorist organisation and should be treated as such. I beg to move.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the effect of this amendment is to seek to apply the post-Omagh provisions to all terrorist organisations proscribed in Schedule 2.
	As I made clear in relation to the previous amendment, the Government's view in 1998 was that the post-Omagh provisions pushed the law to its limits but that it was appropriate to do so because of the consequences of not having such provisions in relation to those persons who still attacked the peace process.
	We remain of that view. We believe that the effect of the post-Omagh provisions is that they must be targeted appropriately, and they are at the moment. We do not believe that it would be a positive step at this stage to seek to bring within their scope those organisations which are maintaining the ceasefire. In the light of those comments, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation which, he rightly says, he gave earlier.
	I have much sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in relation to complex burdens on courts, the risk of unfair trials and miscarriages of justice, I have no sympathy whatever--and I do not think they deserve our sympathy--with terrorists or would-be terrorists. It is wrong to set up two classes of terrorism. I believe that the Government are making a serious mistake in treating the Omagh legislation as something very special which took place after an extremely emotional event.
	We are looking to the future which we can see. I hate to say that it is possible that there could be worse atrocities. There could be knowledge pending such an atrocity when we should like to use the post-Omagh legislative powers.
	I believe that this Bill would be a better Bill had Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 been accepted and had the scope of this clause been widened. However, it has been made quite clear today that that is not the will of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 108 [Evidence]:

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 23:
	Leave out Clause 108.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I hope to be fairly brief because this amendment was debated at some length in Committee. However, it is an amendment of some importance.
	This is another of the post-Omagh provisions. It is a provision which has pushed the law not only up to the limits but, in this case, beyond them.
	In speaking to the previous amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that he had no sympathy for terrorists. That is a statement with which we--indeed, I believe I speak for all noble Lords on these Benches--would absolutely concur. We have no sympathy for terrorists.
	At the same time we recognise that in defeating terrorism we do not and should not allow ourselves access to the weapons of the terrorists themselves. In the fight against terrorism, it is absolutely essential to observe the rule of law.
	We are concerned that Clause 108 does not observe the rule of law. The problem is that it treats the opinion of a police officer as evidence. The opinion of a police officer is not and cannot be evidence. He can give evidence as to the grounds on which he holds that opinion but the opinion as to whether the accused is or is not guilty of the offence with which he is charged--in this case, membership of a terrorist organisation--is a matter which is for the court to decide and not for the policeman.
	Evidence of opinion is permissible in our courts only in the case of expert witnesses. The police officer is not an expert. This clause was introduced in the immediate aftermath of Omagh. It was a clause which did not receive the attention that it deserved. It was considered in surroundings of high emotion and at short notice when legislation was rushed through your Lordships' House in a couple of days.
	The only justification for this clause is that it is necessary in order to bring the law of the United Kingdom, as in force in Northern Ireland, into line with the law in the Republic of Ireland where a legal provision of this kind has been in force for some years. Indeed, as I understand it, some convictions have been obtained under it.
	We do not think that that is sufficient reason for departing from the longstanding traditions of British justice, which say that the decision on an issue of this kind is for the jury alone, or in the case of a Diplock court in Northern Ireland, for the judge alone. Furthermore, we believe that not only is this clause contrary to the principles and traditions of British justice, let alone the rules of the European Convention; it is also unlikely ever to have effect.
	I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, is unable to be here today. He spoke very effectively on this subject, both at Second Reading and in Committee. Perhaps I may refer to something he said. His knowledge of the judiciary in Northern Ireland is far greater than mine. He said:
	"No judge in Northern Ireland--I am lucky enough to know most, if not all, of them--would take account of the opinion of a police officer, however senior, as to whether an accused was a member of a specified organisation unless he could back up that opinion with some evidence. Without evidence it is mere opinion and mere opinion is worthless in a court of law except when it is given on expert grounds".--[Official Report, 6/6/00; col.1080.]
	The view of the noble and learned Lord was that this clause would be wholly ineffective because no court would convict on the basis of the evidence of a police officer. I recognise that the clause provides that there can be no conviction solely on the basis of that evidence. However, it is clear that, if the other evidence is insufficient on its own to convict, no court would convict by adding the opinion of the police officer to that evidence.
	The evidence on which the police officer bases his opinion is, no doubt, evidence which is admissible in the case. However, what will happen, unquestionably, is that the first question to be asked of the police officer by counsel for the accused is, "What is the evidence upon which your opinion is based?" The police officer may possibly say what that evidence is, in which case the question will be asked, "Why are not the witnesses brought who could give that evidence?"
	What is much more likely is that for reasons of preserving the anonymity of informers or otherwise for the protection of security, the police officer will say, "I am not prepared to state the evidence on which my opinion is based". In that case it seems to me to be inevitable that the court will say, "We are not prepared to place any weight on this evidence". In those circumstances it seems to me that this clause is both wrong in principle and unlikely ever to produce the kind of results that the Government intended when the clause was introduced. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I had thought that I might leave it to the Government to defend the inclusion of this clause in their Bill, which I presume they will do in a moment. However, I should like to respond to one or two of the points made by the noble Lord in moving the amendment.
	The noble Lord rightly said that this provision has been in force in the Republic of Ireland for some time and has led to some convictions. I understand that that is the case. I sometimes find it difficult to explain to the Republic why in Northern Ireland, in some respects, including this, we have weaker laws against terrorism than they do. In one sense we have the same problem; we are dealing with the same terrorists. But obviously it is a greater problem because the terrorists are much more active in Northern Ireland than in the Republic.
	The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, also stated that the decision should be one for the court, with which I agree, and would remain one for the court. However, the nub of the reason for my intervention is that the noble Lord said that a policeman is not an expert. I realise that he was speaking as a lawyer and expressing a technical view of who is an expert in a court and may give an opinion. It is my view that in Northern Ireland the police are the real experts on terrorism and on who are the terrorists. This applies only to Northern Ireland. It is the police who have been so severely threatened for such a long time. It is they who have studied the terrorists most carefully.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for giving way. Perhaps he would accept that this was not so much my view as that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. Perhaps he would also accept that the police are, in a sense, experts on terrorism in Northern Ireland. However, they are not experts in the legal sense. They are not experts on the subject of whether Mr X or Ms Y is or is not personally a terrorist. That is not an expert question in terms of the law.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am not an expert in the law. I accept the expertise of the noble Lord and of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, as regards the legal position. However, I still believe that the police, particularly in Northern Ireland, are the ones who know the terrorists best, in every sense of the word, and in the deepest sense. They have every reason, both professional and personal, to do so. I believe that without other evidence--this cannot be done on a policeman's word alone--a court would sometimes find it valuable to have a senior policeman, a superintendent, as is laid down, express what seems to me to be, even if not in the legal sense, an expert opinion on the matter. I therefore support the clause.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, perhaps I may explain briefly some additional reasons for supporting the amendment. I hope that in his reply the noble and learned Lord will be able to explain why the Government consider Clause 108, read with Clause 109, because they are inter-related, to be compatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I say that because the Government committed themselves, when asked, to provide their reasons for considering a provision to be compatible.
	The Government will know that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission gave a full briefing on this matter and expressed particular concern about Clause 108. The commission pointed out that Clause 108 permits a court to admit police opinion evidence, that is, hearsay evidence, into evidence in criminal proceedings, although recognising that a defendant cannot be convicted solely on the basis of that evidence.
	The commission also pointed out that Clause 109 further permits a court to draw adverse inferences from a defendant's failure during questioning to,
	"mention a fact which is material to the offence and which he could reasonably be expected to mention".
	Again, a defendant cannot be convicted solely on the basis of such evidence. However, the commission pointed out that it appears that a defendant may be convicted using a combination of evidence admitted under Clauses 108 and 109. That seems to be the position.
	The existing equivalent power comes in Section 30A of the Emergency Powers Act, which to date does not seem to have been relied on according to the commission in Northern Ireland. The commission understands that the police in Northern Ireland are reluctant to use that section in court.
	The relevant provision of the European convention is Article 6(3):
	"Everyone charged with a criminal offence has ... the right ... to examine or have examined witnesses against him".
	In its briefing the commission points to a well-known line of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in cases like Engel, Kostovski, Doorson and Van Mechelen, which essentially say that convictions should not be based solely or decisively on hearsay evidence. The safeguard in the Bill is that they should not be based "solely" on that evidence.
	The commission points out that it holds the same view as that held by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in the debate to which my noble friend Lord Goodhart referred on the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill 1998; that is, that a violation of Article 6 is likely to occur when a conviction is based not solely on police opinion evidence but decisively under Clause 108, or a combination of police opinion evidence and adverse influences under Clauses 108 and 109.
	If the Minister has not seen the brief from the Northern Ireland Commission of Human Rights, and had those points drawn to his attention, I understand that he may wish to deal with this matter by way of letter or at Third Reading. But if he is ready to explain his answers to those points I shall be grateful. Otherwise, this may be another example where we are legislating in a way that will have to be put right afterwards in litigation, if ever the point arises.
	As my noble friend Lord Goodhart said, it seems unlikely that Clause 108 will ever be able to be applied in practice. It will therefore be a provision written in water as regards the law. And although we may draw great satisfaction from such legislation, if that is the true position and it will not be enforced in practice by the courts, the House is entitled to know that.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, in his attempt to establish that senior police officers are experts, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, demolished his own case. One of his arguments was that they were experts because they had been on the receiving end of terrorism for so long. I hope that does not misconstrue what he said.
	The last thing one wants in an expert is someone who is emotionally or personally involved. The reason one wants an expert in a court of law is that he is someone who will put forward the facts and the arguments as they exist without personal bias. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, shot himself in the foot, if I may say so, and I support the amendment as it stands.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, it would be difficult to find anybody in Northern Ireland who was not emotionally involved in the tragic events at Omagh. That had a traumatic effect on everybody. I doubt it is possible to find any member of the RUC, professional and disciplined as they are, who was not involved in that event because it had such a cataclysmic impact on the whole community.
	Having said that, we are all aware that there are many terrorists in Northern Ireland who are known to the RUC--or in southern Ireland known to the Garda--who are never brought to justice because there is insufficient evidence to convict them. In some instances they may not be guilty of the offence which the police believe they perpetrated. But I am fairly confident that in many instances both the Garda and the RUC know who the guilty people are and do not have the evidence to bring them before the court. With the exception of one person who was charged, to date none of the perpetrators of the Omagh atrocity has been charged, and yet there is reason to believe that many of them are known to the Garda and the RUC. Again, there is no evidence.
	I say that simply as an introductory comment to this debate on Clause 108, given that I was involved as a Minister with the original Bill when it was brought before this House, along with my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General. When we are dealing with difficult matters and pushing democracy as far as it is safe so to do, the question is whether the response is proportionate to the evil we are trying to tackle. Although for many offences I would not want a Clause 108, in the case of terrorism as extreme as Omagh the response contained in that clause is proportionate to the evil done to society in Northern Ireland, given the safeguard.
	The noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Goodhart, referred to the safeguard, but I feel that subsection (3)(b) is significant. It says,
	"the accused shall not be committed for trial, be found to have a case to answer or be convicted solely on the basis of the statement".
	I have more faith in the discernment and objectivity of the judiciary in Northern Ireland than suggested by the speeches we have heard this evening.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he realise that we were not in any way disparaging the judiciary in Northern Ireland? On the contrary; we were attempting to explain that, such is the commitment of the Northern Ireland judiciary to the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, it is highly improbable that Clause 108 as it stands will ever be able to be invoked. That is why I described it as a provision written in water and therefore one which ought not to be made part of our law.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I appreciate that comment. In that case we are both agreed as to the high standards of the judiciary in Northern Ireland. I suggest that is an additional safeguard for those who have doubts about Clause 108.
	I repeat, of course we are not overenthusiastic about having to have such a clause on the statute book. But it is proportionate to the evil with which we are dealing and that is a justification for including it in the Bill.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, took us back to the events of 1998 and the Bill which was introduced when he was still a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. I remember the speed with which that legislation was rushed through your Lordships' House and I warned at the time how dangerous it was to enact far-reaching legislation of this kind in response to an event, however terrible, which caused tremendous concern among the public. But that was the wrong way in which to enact legislation.
	The fact that we are adopting provisions contained in the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act is not a convincing argument to those of us who objected to the process in the first place. Not only is my noble friend's example of the advice given to us by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission relevant in considering this matter, but so also is the similar briefing we received from Amnesty International, which I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, must have seen.
	I suspect that the noble and learned Lord will not need to make use of my noble friend's suggestion that he may wish to defer a definitive answer to these points until he has had an opportunity of writing. The department must have apprised him not only of what Professor Brice Dickson said but also of the opinions of Amnesty International; that is, that conviction could be obtained on the basis of the opinion of a police officer supported by inferences drawn from a failure to disclose material information under the provisions of Clause 109. They say that this is not only a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention, as my noble friend pointed out, but that it breaches Articles 14(2) and 14(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that in the circumstances we faced in Northern Ireland following the Omagh atrocity, we pushed democracy as far as it was safe to do so. That was a very telling and revealing phrase. In my opinion, we should always have a safety margin in defending democracy. Just as in designing a building so that it exceeds any load that might conceivably be placed on it by a factor of several orders of magnitude, so, in defending democracy, we must have a sufficient margin between the legislation that we enact and the limits to which democracy is fully tested--

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I was making a reply to that point--"as far as it was safe to do so". That is exactly the point that I was making.

Lord Avebury: With respect, the legislation that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, piloted through the House in the Summer Recess of 1998 did not give us that safety margin. As I pointed out at the time, it is the only time in the history of Parliament that criminal law has been enacted in the middle of the Summer Recess. It has never happened before. Yet your Lordships rushed that provision through the House, and we are now enacting it in permanent law.
	We should think not once but several times before we insert this provision into a Bill which is going to stand the test of time, but which may test not only the ability of the courts in Northern Ireland but democracy itself. It has never been used, as the Human Rights Commission of Northern Ireland has pointed out, and the police in Northern Ireland must have good reasons for not using it in that context. If it is going to lie on the statue book as a dead letter, we are making the mistake, which Parliament should never do, of putting measures on to the statue book as a gesture when we know that they are never going to be used by the courts.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, in relation to any offence, however heinous, wherever committed, it is surely axiomatic that conviction must depend upon evidence. I recognise that in the special circumstances of terrorism generally, and terrorism in Northern Ireland in particular, it may perhaps be necessary to change the rules relating to the obtaining of evidence and how it is obtained, and to change the procedures by which the sources of evidence are protected. I recognise that. What I cannot find myself persuaded to accept is that there should be a different level of quality of evidence.
	I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The essence of his point is that we are seeking to write into legislation something which proscribes a different quality of evidence which would or might lead to conviction.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I intervene very briefly, not to contradict or differ from what the noble Lord has just said, but for the benefit of those of your Lordships who have a fixation about the reliability of RUC officers. The suggestion is that, because they have been murdered in their hundreds, they might have a built-in resistance or enmity towards certain types of criminal.
	I realise that the noble and learned Lord has enough on his plate at present, but perhaps he can give some thought in the future to whether it would be more acceptable if the powers that be invited the Deputy Director of MI6 to give the evidence rather than an RUC officer? It would possibly be even more detailed than anything that an RUC officer might produce. To those who may say that MI6 is not supposed to operate within the United Kingdom, I say that anyone who believes that will believe anything.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should like to say how much I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Marlesford.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I very strongly support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I recognise the difficulties. However, it seems to me that the people of Omagh--and by extension the people of Northern Ireland--need to have justice done and to see it done. We know that at present the RUC has decided that, were it to proceed as the Act of 1998 allows, it would indeed be taken to the Court of Human Rights and overruled.
	Nevertheless, given the provision in this draft legislation, I cannot understand why it is improper because it would not be only on the basis of the evidence of an officer. I cannot understand why the existence of evidence that someone is a terrorist, who was in a place at the right time, should not be brought to court. It just may give courage to witnesses to come forward. They have not come forward, but they have not been given an opportunity to do so. In my opinion, it would be wrong to leave any stone unturned which would enable those people to be brought to justice. Given the provision of the safeguards in the legislation, I cannot see how that could be regarded as improper. It is more likely to secure justice than doing nothing at all.

Lord Desai: My Lords, I find myself in a dilemma. I have heard what has been said by my noble friend Lord Dubs, for which I have a lot of sympathy. I have also heard what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said. It may be that a very stringent law was necessary to catch the killers of Omagh. Nobody has yet been caught. That may be because sufficient evidence has not been obtained, for which we shall have to wait patiently, or because the police have decided that this particular piece of legislation which was passed in 1998 is not of much help either way, and therefore they have not invoked the provisions of this particular clause. I should like to know which of the two is the real explanation.
	If it is an ineffective but stringent piece of legislation which pushes democracy beyond the limits that we would like to set, we should not have it. If it is both ineffective and creates a serious violation of human rights, there is greater reason for not having it. It would therefore be very helpful to know whether this will be an effective weapon in the hands of the authorities and whether there is any evidence for this.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dubs described the effect of the atrocity at Omagh. It is right that the Government should respond to that atrocity in a way that is proportionate and appropriate. We believed at the time that this response was proportionate and appropriate, and we continue to believe that that is the position. Indeed we believe that it would be wrong to change the provisions now.
	In the course of this short debate, these provisions have received considerable support from all sides of the House. As I understand it, the argument for saying that they should be withdrawn is threefold. First, it is said that the provisions go too far. They go, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, put it, "beyond the limits of the law". Secondly, they infringe the Human Rights Convention and/or the Civil and Political Declaration by the UN, referred to in the Amnesty International Report. Thirdly--and perhaps contradictory to the first two points--they will in any event be of no avail at any stage.
	With regard to the first point that it goes too far, I should point out that the effect of the provision contained in Clause 108 is that an officer above the rank of superintendent can give evidence of someone's membership of a proscribed organisation. That officer can be cross-examined on the evidence that he gives. The effect of the clause is only to make the evidence admissible; it is entirely for the judge to determine what weight to attach to that evidence. The weight that he attaches to it will, presumably, depend upon such answers as the officer gives in the course of cross-examination. Like everyone in this House, I am second to none in my admiration for the Northern Irish judiciary. I am quite sure that they would be as good as any judiciary in the world in ensuring that the provision is properly applied.
	Secondly, that evidence alone cannot be the basis of a commitment for trial or a conviction: it must be supported by other evidence. Thirdly, in relation to the combination of silence, on the one hand, and the evidence on the other, this could, on the face of it, provide a conviction. However, before any adverse inference in relation to silence can be drawn, the defendant must have had the opportunity to take the advice of a solicitor. Again, the evidence of the officer and the evidence of silence do not compel a conviction. It is entirely a matter for the court to determine what the right conclusion is in relation to such cases. I do not think that the provision goes too far. I believe that there are appropriate safeguards in place. If one looks at the matter from a standing start, as it were, it seems to be an entirely appropriate response.
	Does it infringe the convention or the declaration? Those two arguments have been advanced in relation to why it infringes the convention or the declaration. First, it is hearsay and, therefore, there must be a proper opportunity to test the evidence. That opportunity is there from the legal system that permits appropriate, proper and testing cross-examination of the evidence. Secondly, it has been said--

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Surely the police officer concerned cannot be compelled, for security reasons, to answer questions in cross-examination that might disclose the sources of his opinion. Will that not make cross-examination an ineffective defence? Alternatively, is it the intention that the police officer should be compelled to disclose the source of his information?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords. I should imagine that the usual rules in relation to public interest immunity would not apply in that respect. However, that does not affect my basic point. The case must be made out. If the case is not made out as a result of a refusal to answer questions on perfectly legitimate grounds, no doubt the court will so find. But, in each case, it will depend on whether or not the evidence is sufficient to found a conviction.
	I return to the position under the convention and under the declaration. Is it possible to test the evidence? Yes it is, because it is subject to cross-examination under our system, which plainly complies in principle with Article 6. The other point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, was that a person should not be convicted solely and decisively on hearsay evidence. Safeguards have been built in to the provision in that respect. The legislation specifically says that a person cannot be convicted on that evidence alone. I believe that the position under the convention is dealt with by those points. It is a perfectly robust position for the Government to take.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I should point out that there is no difference between the covenant and the convention, so we can forget about the covenant. I shall concentrate on the convention. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that the principle of equality of arms means that no witness must have a decisive weight--an unfair advantage--in the course of a criminal trial, or, for that matter, of a civil trial? If we have a position where opinion evidence (which is hearsay) given by a police officer could be tested by cross-examination ineffectually because he cannot be compelled to disclose his sources for security reasons, that would run the risk of rendering the trial one in which there is inequality of arms and, therefore, unfairness. If that is so, does the noble and learned Lord agree that a judge would have no alternative but to find that the prosecution case had not been made out? It means that the extreme nature of the provision could lead to an ineffectual result. Therefore, there is no contradiction in saying that this is extreme and, for that reason, ineffective.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that takes us back to the essential point: it will depend upon what answers the officer gives in cross-examination. This would certainly be a Diplock trial and, therefore, the judge would then have to proceed on the basis of that evidence. He would have to ask himself, "Is there enough here which makes it possible for me to conclude that I should convict the defendant beyond reasonable doubt?". If there is insufficient material available to reach such a conclusion, I have no doubt that the Northern Irish judiciary would reach that conclusion.
	The final point made by the noble Lord was that this provision will be of no avail because it will never be used. It is very difficult for us to put together all the possible circumstances in which a charge might be brought. There may well be cases where this provision, and the one regarding silence, would be of value to the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland. If there is a realistic chance that it could be of value to the prosecuting authorities, then, both for the reason of its effectiveness and also for the reason given by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, it should be in the armoury of the criminal justice authorities in Northern Ireland. Therefore, the reasons advanced by noble Lords do not hold water. We believe that the provision should stay. In the light of my remarks, I very much hope that the noble Lord will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, again, I obviously regret that the noble and learned Lord has been unable to offer any movement on the part of the Government in the direction required. Before I deal briefly with the Minister's response, I should like to comment on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I believe that everyone in the House has the highest admiration for the work carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it gives me no pleasure to have to disagree with him on this issue.
	However, there is a problem here and one which was illustrated by the noble Lord's remarks. He talked about the fact that there have been terrorist outrages in Northern Ireland where the police have known who committed them but have not had the evidence that would lead to a conviction. Nothing in this amendment would affect that position as regards conviction for the commission of an outrage, because Clause 108 applies solely to the one offence of membership of a terrorist organisation. More often than by anything else, miscarriages of justice are perhaps caused by the very cases where the police think they know who committed the offence, but where they do not have the evidence to prove it.
	In the general principle, it is plain that there is no case to justify extending the ability of the police to give evidence as to who committed an offence simply as a matter of opinion--or to state something as a matter of their opinion--when that opinion is not based on evidence that will stand up in court. Therefore, I do not think that the argument put forward by the noble Lord could justify the provisions of Clause 108.
	I turn now to the defence of the noble and learned Lord of Clause 108. The reference to PII is really the nub of the matter. In a sense, the purpose of Clause 108 is to get around the problem of public interest immunity indirectly by giving power to bring in evidence through a police officer's opinion which the Government could not bring directly to court because they are not prepared to compromise their sources. I do not think that this is a legitimate way of handling a matter of this kind.
	I am not happy with the continuation of Clause 108 in this Bill. Nevertheless, despite the fact that we have received support from several Members of your Lordships' House who do not sit on our Benches, it is clear that both the Government Front Bench and the Conservative Front Bench would oppose any attempt to remove Clause 108 from the Bill. Any attempt to do so would therefore clearly be heavily defeated. Even so, I would be tempted to press the amendment were it not for the fact that I am convinced that for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, on previous occasions, this is a clause which in practice is most unlikely to be used. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 113 [Transitional provisions]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 24:
	Page 54, line 9, at end insert--
	("( ) Paragraph 18A of Schedule 9 shall have effect only in relation to an offence alleged to have been committed after the coming into force of that Schedule.").

Lord Bach: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 117 [Consent to prosecution]:
	[Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 27:
	Leave out Clause 117 and insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:CONSENT TO PROSECUTION
	(" .--(1) This section applies to an offence under any provision of this Act other than an offence under--
	(a) section 36,
	(b) section 51,
	(c) paragraph 18 of Schedule 7,
	(d) paragraph 12 of Schedule 12, or
	(e) Schedule 13.
	(2) Proceedings for an offence to which this section applies--
	(a) shall not be instituted in England and Wales without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and
	(b) shall not be instituted in Northern Ireland without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.
	(3) Where it appears to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland that an offence to which this section applies is committed for a purpose connected with the affairs of a country other than the United Kingdom--
	(a) subsection (2) shall not apply, and
	(b) proceedings for the offence shall not be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General or the Attorney General for Northern Ireland.").

Lord Bach: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 27 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 34. I shall be brief.
	In Committee I said that the Government would bring forward an amendment at Report stage covering similar ground to that in Amendment No. 27 and similar ground to that in the amendments then before the Committee moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, concerning consent to prosecutions in what might be termed "international" cases. This we have done. Our amendments speak for themselves. As far as international cases are concerned, it should be the Attorney General who has to give his consent to a prosecution taking place. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches are most grateful to the Government for taking on board the points we made in Committee. We are happy to support the Government's amendment.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we also made similar remarks earlier in our debates. I support the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 118 [Defences]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 28:
	Page 55, line 10, leave out ("sufficient evidence") and insert ("evidence which is sufficient").

Lord Bach: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 28 I wish to speak also to government Amendment No. 29. These are minor and technical amendments to make sure that Clause 118, which was added to the Bill in Committee, works for Scotland. The reason they are needed is that Clause 118 as presently drafted uses the expression "sufficient evidence". I am advised that this expression can have a technical meaning under Scots law and, quite simply, could itself require a shift in the burden of proof to the prosecutor. In the context of Clause 118, noble Lords will appreciate that the confusion which this could cause for Scotland is certainly not what we intended--which was to refer to evidence which is good enough to give rise to issues about the matter before the court.
	Fortunately, by simply turning the words round from "sufficient evidence" to "evidence which is sufficient" we have been able to keep the meaning the same as it is at present for England and Wales and Northern Ireland while at the same time removing the risk of any confusion regarding the application of the clause in Scotland. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 29:
	Page 55, line 19, leave out ("sufficient evidence is adduced") and insert ("evidence is adduced which is sufficient").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 123 [Orders and regulations]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 30:
	Page 58, line 33, leave out ("1(2)(b)") and insert (" 2(2)").

Lord Bach: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 30 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 36 and 37.
	The substantive amendments in this group are to Schedule 1 to the Bill. Noble Lords will recall that Schedule 1 is a mechanism for keeping alive the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act between Royal Assent and the commencement of Part VII of the Bill next year.
	When the Bill was introduced, we had to bear in mind two possibilities. The first--perhaps a rather optimistic one--was that Royal Assent would be received before 15th June, the second that Royal Assent would be after that date. Schedule 1 was therefore drafted to cover both scenarios.
	Now that Royal Assent will obviously be after 15th June, we consider that these technical provisions are best redrafted so as to proceed on that basis. We hope that in doing so we have made Schedule 1 easier for the reader to follow. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
	Clause 128 [Commencement]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 32:
	Page 59, line 33, leave out ("2(2)") and insert (" 2(1)(b) and (2)").

Lord Bach: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 129 [Transitional provisions]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 33:
	Page 60, line 3, leave out subsection (2) and insert--
	("(2) Where--
	(a) a person is detained by virtue of a provision of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (as continued in force by virtue of Schedule 1 to this Act), and
	(b) the provision ceases to have effect,
	he shall be treated as lawfully detained under any corresponding provision of this Act.").

Lord Bach: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 34:
	Page 60, line 29, at end insert--
	("(8) Section (Consent to prosecution) shall apply to the institution of proceedings after commencement of that section whether the offence to which the proceedings relate (which may, by virtue of subsection (4) above, be an offence under a provision repealed by this Act) is alleged to have been committed before or after commencement of that section.").

Lord Bach: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 27. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
	Schedule 1 [Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996:

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 36 and 37:
	Page 61, line 5, leave out paragraphs 1 to 3 and insert--
	("1.--(1) This paragraph applies to any of the following if and in so far as it is in force immediately before the passing of this Act by virtue of an order under section 62(3) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (duration)--
	(a) a provision of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (other than one mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)),
	(b) a provision of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, and
	(c) section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 (forfeiture orders).
	(2) This paragraph does not apply to the following provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996--
	(a) section 26(1)(b) (power of entry on authority of Secretary of State),
	(b) section 35 (wearing of hoods), and
	(c) section 50 (explosives factories).
	2.--(1) A provision to which paragraph 1 applies shall continue in force for the period of 12 months starting with the day on which this Act is passed.
	(2) The Secretary of State may by order provide for a provision to which paragraph 1 applies to continue in force for the period of 12 months immediately following the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (1).
	3.--(1) The powers under section 62(3)(a) and (c) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 shall continue to be exercisable in relation to a provision to which paragraph 1 applies in respect of any period falling within--
	(a) the period mentioned in paragraph 2(1), or
	(b) a period specified in relation to that provision under paragraph 2(2).
	(2) The power under section 62(3)(b) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 shall continue to be exercisable in relation to a provision to which paragraph 1 applies at any time during--
	(a) the period mentioned in paragraph 2(1), or
	(b) a period specified in relation to that provision under paragraph 2(2).
	3A. The Secretary of State may by order provide for a provision to which paragraph 1 applies--
	(a) to cease to have effect on a specified day;
	(b) to cease to be capable of being the subject of an order under section 62(3) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996.
	3B. The continuance in force of a provision by virtue of paragraph 2 is subject to any order made by virtue of paragraph 3 or 3A.
	3C.--(1) A provision of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 to which paragraph 1 does not apply shall continue to have effect for the purposes of, or in so far it relates to, any provision to which that paragraph does apply.
	(2) While Part I of Schedule 1 to that Act (scheduled offences) has effect by virtue of this Schedule, the following shall also have effect--
	(a) Part III of that Schedule (extra-territorial offences), and
	(b) sections 3, 10 and 11 of that Act so far as they relate to offences which are scheduled offences by virtue of that Part.").
	Page 61, line 41, leave out ("paragraph 1(2)") and insert ("this Schedule").

Lord Bach: My Lords, these amendments were both spoken to with Amendment No. 30. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 38:
	Page 62, line 2, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(5)").

Lord Bach: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 38 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 42, 43, 44, 45, 52 and 53. This amendment and the others in this group are minor and technical drafting amendments. They do not change the effect of the Bill in any way. Of course I would be happy to explain each of them further if noble Lords wish. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 39:
	Page 62, line 38, leave out from ("may") to ("appeal") in line 39.

Lord Bach: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 39 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 40, 50 and 51.
	One of the improvements this Bill makes to the EPA is to introduce a right of appeal against a refusal by the Secretary of State to grant a licence to a person wishing to provide private security service in Northern Ireland. A refusal to issue a licence may be based on sensitive intelligence--the purpose of the licensing regime is to prevent funds being raised for paramilitary organisations.
	The Bill ensures a right of appeal to the High Court but where there is a need to protect intelligence material the Secretary of State may certify that the refusal to issue the licence was to prevent funds reaching the paramilitaries. When such a certificate is issued, the High Court proceedings stop and the appellant may, if he chooses, appeal to the tribunal established under the 1998 Northern Ireland Act. That tribunal's proceedings are governed by rules made by the Lord Chancellor. Amendments Nos. 40 and 51 provide for those rules to have effect with the changes necessary to reflect the expansion of the tribunal's remit, subject to any later changes to the rules themselves.
	Amendments Nos. 39 and 50 are minor drafting changes to clarify the position that the tribunal rules are indeed the rules which will apply in private security services cases. Without these amendments, we are concerned that the impression might be given that we intend to make separate rules. I trust that these are uncontroversial amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 40:
	Page 62, line 42, at end insert--
	("(8) Rules made under section 91 or 92 of that Act which are in force immediately before the passing of this Act shall have effect in relation to a certificate under sub-paragraph (5)--
	(a) with any necessary modifications, and
	(b) subject to any later rules made by virtue of sub-paragraph (7)(b).").

Lord Bach: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 39. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Proscribed Organisations]:
	[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
	Schedule 4 [Forfeiture Orders]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 42 to 45:
	Page 75, line 3, leave out ("in any case").
	Page 77, line 21, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").
	Page 77, line 37, leave out ("within the meaning of section 14").
	Page 88, line 35, leave out ("Economic Development") and insert ("Enterprise, Trade and Investment").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 7 [Port and Border Controls]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 46:
	Page 109, line 9, at end insert ("as soon as is reasonably practicable").

Lord Bach: My Lords, Amendment No. 46 responds to a point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, during the Committee stage. I agreed to consider this further and report back to the House.
	The Government believe that there are sound reasons for the United Kingdom to carry out checks at ports to prevent and detect terrorists and terrorist activity at our borders. The provision of passenger and crew details is a very important part of that process. But the Government also recognise that requirements on carriers to co-operate have to be reasonable, proportionate and conducted sensitively so as to minimise the impact on the travelling public and business. We also recognise that we need to work closely with carriers and operators at ports to achieve this. A partnership approach is required.
	The amendment provides that owners and agents of ships or aircraft should provide the police with passenger information,
	"as soon as is reasonably practicable".
	It was, of course, never the Government's intention in drafting this provision that carriers would be asked to provide information within unreasonable time scales. We felt that it went without saying that the police would ask for information to be provided within reasonable time frames, bearing in mind the particular circumstances of the case.
	But I recognise that there has been some concern on this point and that an explicit reference to "reasonableness" on the face of the Bill may provide additional comfort. As part of our on-going partnership approach in combating terrorism, I am happy to bring forward this amendment today. I beg to move.

Lord Greenway: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister did not wish to omit my name on purpose, but I moved a similar amendment at an earlier stage. On behalf of the other noble Lords, who were not in their places a moment ago, I thank the Government for taking our point on board and for bringing forward this amendment, which achieves what we were asking.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 46A, which is grouped with this amendment, like the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, I am grateful for the government statement made in Committee that carriers would not be prosecuted for passing on information that turned out to be false. However, this still leaves the air and sea carriers without the statutory defence accorded to the financial institutions in Schedule 6. I am at a loss to understand why the Government should consider this disparity of treatment acceptable. Transport operators certainly find it exceedingly odd.
	I understand that the board of airline representatives has invited the Home Office officials involved to view its reservation systems in order to ensure a proper understanding of what information is contained about passengers and what is not. Had the carriers been consulted prior to the introduction of the Bill, as the banks were, I suspect that the defence would have been granted to them earlier. Regrettably, consultation did not take place.
	I should make it clear that the carriers seek only to have the defence in cases where they are unable to provide the information because they simply do not have it. It is not a case of being obstructive by withholding information. The banks have been allowed this defence in similar circumstances, and I am simply proposing that the air and sea carriers should be treated equally when the police come to invoke their powers.
	At the beginning of my remarks I praised the Government for their assurances in respect of carriers passing on information which turned out to be bogus. There is no way in which carriers can verify passenger information because passengers are not required to carry passports with them when travelling within the common travel area. Transport operators' experience suggests that celebrities are among the most loyal of customers, even to the extent of appearing several times on the same passenger list.
	The worth of such passenger information must obviously therefore be questioned. I ask my noble friend to consider how information of this kind could be of any help to the police in countering terrorism.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I support the amendment. I apologise for being slightly late; things have moved on rather quickly.
	I thank the Government for introducing Amendment No. 46, which is very helpful from the point of view of the carriers. The words used by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in Committee--which are now recorded in Hansard--are also very helpful to carriers.
	The Minister will of course recognise the wording of Amendment No. 46A in that it is taken precisely from Schedule 6 to the Bill which gives the financial institutions exactly this kind of defence. If it is allowable for the financial institutions, why should it not also be allowable for the carriers? It seems to me that it is the same kind of information, and the noble Viscount has explained the difficulties that the carriers can have in providing it. As we said in Committee, there is absolutely no requirement within the common travel area for any papers to be carried by passengers. It would seem perfectly reasonable to give the carriers exactly the same defence as the financial institutions have in Schedule 6.
	As I understand it--and as the noble Viscount said--the carriers were not consulted during the drafting of the Bill. Had they been so, they would have been able to inform officials from the Home Office exactly how they go about issuing their tickets and run their reservation systems. I understand that that is now happening, but perhaps it is a little late in the day.
	I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to the noble Viscount's amendment and to explain why the financial institutions should have this defence and the shipping and airline companies should not.

Lord Greenway: My Lords, on behalf of the ferry companies, I, too, should like to be associated with the sentiments behind this amendment, having moved a similar amendment at Committee stage. I do not think the Government will have changed their minds in the interim, but it would be nice to know that they have thought about it again.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we had some discussion on these general matters in Committee. The case has been made again by my noble friend Lord Brabazon, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. I rise to express some sympathy with the points that lie behind Amendment No. 46A and to thank the Government for responding in the way that they have done in bringing forward Amendment No. 46.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken on this issue. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for not having mentioned his name in the context of those who have helped us to come to the view expressed in our amendment as a result of what they said at Committee stage.
	In Committee we discussed the need for a partnership approach between industry, the police and government in combating terrorism, and the important part that the provision of passenger information can play in this. We debated an amendment very much along these lines. Our amendment, to which I have already spoken, which specifies that passenger information should be provided by carriers and owners
	"as soon as is reasonably practicable"
	provides, we believe, a measure of reassurance that we are sensitive to industry concerns on this issue--and noble Lords have been kind enough to agree with that belief.
	However, I am afraid that we do not think that the amendment brought forward by my noble friend Lord Simon, which is supported by other noble Lords, adopts the right approach in seeking to provide, in addition, a statutory defence that the information requested was not in the carrier's possession or that it was not reasonably practicable for the carrier to comply with the requirement.
	A particular concern is that the first leg of the statutory defence--namely, that the information was not in the possession of the carrier--could at least, on a literal reading, allow a carrier to make no attempt at all to collect the requested passenger information. The carrier could then put forward a defence that that information was never in his possession. I am sure that that is not the intention here. An excellent record of co-operation is held between the carriers and the police. But that could be the effect were this amendment to be agreed.
	Moving to the second limb of the proposed statutory defence, the debate on the order under the Bill will provide the opportunity to decide what types of information it will be reasonable to require of carriers. Once Parliament has agreed what types of information should be provided, and given that our amendment stipulates that that information should be provided as soon as "reasonably practicable", we do not think that it is either necessary or right in addition to provide a statutory defence in the Bill to the effect that it is not practicable to collect the information.
	The police will ask for this information in the context of on-going counter-terrorist inquiries and investigations. The police will not do this lightly. But when information is requested, information that Parliament has agreed the police may request, and to a reasonable timescale, we think it only reasonable to expect that information to be collected. Surely that reflects exactly what should be the partnership approach in tackling terrorism.
	I hope that I have made it clear that we are committed to making the passenger information provisions work for all concerned: for the industry, for the travelling public and for the police. We all agree that the focus should be on working together to combat terrorism.
	Before I sit down, I have been asked by a number of noble Lords a question about the defence set out in Schedule 6 to the Bill. In Committee a noble Lord suggested that it might have been an oversight on our part not to provide such a statutory defence regarding the non-provision of passenger information, because a similar provision existed under Schedule 6 in relation to the provision of financial information.
	However, no oversight has taken place here. The provisions are different; that is why the related offences are constructed differently. The financial information schedule concerns approaching banks to see whether they hold accounts in certain names. If they do not, clearly they cannot provide the information, which is why that statutory defence is provided. Frankly, it makes less sense in the context of passenger information and could be abused, as I have already pointed out.
	As regards the second proposed statutory defence--namely, that it is not reasonably practicable to comply with the requirement--this is provided for in the context of financial information primarily because the police may approach the banks with requests for them to search back through their records for historic information. Depending on the information systems in place, it simply may not be practicable to check that the information is available or to provide it.
	However, we believe that the situation regarding passenger information is different. The police will be asking for information about passengers who are about to travel or who have just done so. Thus the wherewithal for collecting information will be to hand. Moreover, the police will be requesting that information,
	"as soon as is reasonably practicable".
	In these circumstances we do not think it either necessary or right in addition to provide a defence that it was not reasonably practicable to collect and pass on the information. For those reasons, we cannot accept my noble friend's amendment. I hope that he and those who have spoken in support of the amendment will realise that, through their efforts, they have already achieved a great deal.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Simon: moved Amendment No. 46A:
	Page 109, line 33, at end insert--
	("(1A) It is a defence for an owner or agent of a ship or aircraft charged with an offence under paragraph 17(2) to prove either--
	(a) that the specified information requested was not in his possession; or
	(b) that it was not reasonably practicable for him to comply with the request.").

Viscount Simon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his words regarding Amendment No. 46A. I am sure that we shall all study with interest what he has had to say. The chances are that I shall return to this point. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 8 [Detention]:

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 47:
	Page 114, line 42, at end insert--
	("( ) Any part of the consultation heard by the qualified officer shall be treated as subject to legal privilege binding on the qualified officer.").

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we have now reached the final group of amendments. In speaking to Amendment No. 47, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 48. However, since I tabled Amendment No. 48, I have discovered that the expressions "legal privilege" and "legal professional privilege" are not appropriate expressions in the law of Scotland. For that reason, Amendment No. 48 is defective.
	Amendment No. 47 raises an issue on which I hope to receive a reassurance from the Government. The reason why a police officer may be required to listen to what is being said during the course of an interview between someone charged with an offence or who is being held under investigation and his or her solicitor is that there may be cases where, regrettably--although it certainly has happened--the accused might wish to pass on to the solicitor information which would enable evidence to be hidden or other damage to be done to the investigatory process. We accept that that is a legitimate excuse for providing a requirement that the interview should take place within the hearing of a police officer.
	However, a problem arises where what is being overheard may perfectly well be the normal substance of an interview between client and solicitor in which the client gives to his solicitor an account of the facts as he sees them. In that case, if the police officer is not bound by professional privilege, that officer would be entitled to pass on to other members of the police force and ultimately to the prosecution the substance of what he has overheard. That information might in due course be of use to the prosecution in the trial because it would allow the prosecution to say that the accused's evidence on a certain point was inconsistent with the original story as told to the accused's solicitor. That seems to us to be improper.
	The legal professional privilege that attaches between a client and a solicitor--which does not of course extend to matters such as requesting assistance in hiding evidence--should also bind the police officer, so that that officer is equally prevented from passing on to the prosecution information about what he has overheard during the course of the consultations between client and solicitor. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that this amendment is not necessary, but, if it is, it seems to me to be a point that should be covered by the legislation. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: My Lords, we believe that there are technical and policy reasons why we cannot accept these amendments. As regards the technical point, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, got there before me in his comment on the expression "legal privilege" in the language used in Scottish legal circles.
	I shall turn directly to the policy issues here. On a substantive level, as we understand it, the concern of the noble Lord is to ensure that nothing passing between a person detained under Schedule 8 to the Bill and his solicitor should be available for use by the prosecution in subsequent criminal proceedings against the detainee.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, that does not quite cover the burden of the amendment. It seeks to ensure that nothing which could be the subject of legal professional privilege as between client and solicitor should be capable of being passed on by the police officer who overhears the consultation. Matters that range outside professional privilege, which would undoubtedly cover an instruction to the solicitor to dispose of evidence, would not be covered by the privilege.

Lord Bach: My Lords, we believe that such a provision is unnecessary. The way the provisions in the Bill are framed, in that they provide that the officer in the interview must be uniformed and a uniformed member of the force, not connected with the detained person's case, indicates that the intention is not to collect information which may be later used in evidence against the detainee. Rather, the purpose is, as detailed in Schedule 8--in paragraph 8 so far as England and Wales and Northern Ireland are concerned and paragraph 17 so far as Scotland is concerned--is to prevent the compromise of terrorist investigation. These paragraphs make it clear that this is the only reason that a police officer may sit in on such an interview. That purpose is reinforced by the fact that such communications between the detainee and his solicitor under common law would be protected by legal privilege or its equivalent in Scotland, confidentiality. Thus we do not believe the amendments to be necessary
	In any event we think they are rather widely drawn. They appear to suggest, although the noble Lord has made it clear that they do not, that anything which is discussed between a solicitor and his client should attract legal privilege. That is not so in ordinary cases and we do not think it should be the case in terrorist ones.
	We accept that the prosecution must not be provided with legally privileged material. That does not mean of course that the police are prevented from taking any action in connection with anything overheard in an interview. For instance, if a detainee provides information, to take an extreme example, about an imminent terrorist attack, of course action may be taken to disrupt the bomb.
	As I said in Committee, it is acutely uncomfortable to contemplate circumstances in which such provision may be needed. I emphasise to the House that it is only for the most exceptional cases; but it is important for it to be there. For the reasons that I have explained, we believe that the concerns of the noble Lord about the provisions are unfounded. I hope he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I think that my worries have been disposed of by what he has said, and I am grateful that he has now put that on the record. In the circumstances I am happy to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
	Schedule 9 [Scheduled Offences]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 49:
	Page 127, line 37, at end insert--
	:TITLE3:("Computer Misuse Act 1990 (c. 18)
	18A. Offences under the following provisions of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 subject to note 1 below--
	(a) section 1 (unauthorised access to computer material),
	(b) section 2 (unauthorised access with intent to commit further offence), and
	(c) section 3 (unauthorised modification).").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 13 [Private Security Services]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 50 and 51:
	Page 138, line 45, leave out from ("may") to ("appeal") in line 46.
	Page 139, line 2, at end insert--
	("(4) Rules made under section 91 or 92 of that Act which are in force immediately before this paragraph comes into force shall have effect in relation to a certificate under this paragraph--
	(a) with any necessary modifications, and
	(b) subject to any later rules made by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(b).").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 15 [Consequential Amendments]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 52 and 53:
	Page 147, leave out lines 13 to 17.
	Page 148, line 12, at end insert--
	:TITLE3:("Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6)
	.--(1) The Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 shall be amended as follows.
	(2) In section 88(2)(b) (meaning of "remanded in custody") for "section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989" substitute "section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000".
	(3) In section 101(12)(b) (meaning of "remanded in custody") for "section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989" substitute "section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000".").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Indonesia

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, since the debate on Indonesia is not now being taken as dinner-break business, the length of speeches for all speakers other than the noble Baronesses, Lady Cox and Lady Scotland, may be eight minutes rather than four minutes. There is of course no obligation on noble Lords to extend their speeches.

Baroness Cox: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy towards recent developments in Indonesia.
	My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the current situation in Indonesia in your Lordships' House and I thank all noble Lords who will be participating in the debate.
	The debate is, sadly, timely. Recent developments in Indonesia are cause for great concern. Only yesterday 120 people were killed in the Christian village of Duma in Halmahera in Northern Moluccas. My contribution will focus on the escalation of conflict in the Moluccas, as I and colleagues from Christian Solidarity Worldwide have recently returned from the region. We found devastation and suffering on a scale beyond anything we had expected.
	The Moluccas, also known by their more romantic name of "The Spice Islands", are dramatically beautiful. They used to be a model of religious harmony. But recently sectarian violence has racked the communities, leaving many once beautiful and prosperous towns and villages in ruins, an estimated 3,000 people dead and over 270,000 displaced, many living in conditions of acute deprivation in the jungle.
	The two major religious communities, Muslim and Christian, had co-existed peacefully for centuries. But tensions have been building, erupting into violence and war for a number of reasons: demographic, economic, political and religious. First, there was Suharto's policy of transmigration in which the delicate demographic balance of approximately 50 per cent Muslim and 50 per cent Christian was upset by a large influx of predominantly Muslim settlers. This upset trading patterns, with Christians experiencing difficulties in selling goods in the markets.
	The new demographic structure led to changes in political representation and to the marginalisation of Christians in local government, the military and the police force. Local conflicts were fuelled by the influx of jihad warriors. Major conflict broke out in the town of Ambon in January last year during which about 700 churches were burned together with many mosques. An estimated 2,000 jihad warriors arrived while we were there in April. There have since been reports of the arrival of a further 1,000 members of the Laskar Jihad movement.
	Subsequently, violence has escalated. Time only permits a few examples. On 30th May this year, also in Halmahera, at least 50 Christian villagers were killed and over 100 injured in a carefully co-ordinated land and sea attack believed to have been carried out by jihad warriors, actively supported by the Indonesian armed forces. On 3rd June, in Ambon, the Reverend Ridolf Bernard was killed and three people injured in an attack on a ferry. On 8th June, in nearby Sulawesi, police reinforcements were sent to Poso to quell violence which had already claimed 20 lives. The chief of police expressed concern over reports that a further 1,500 jihad warriers were on their way to the area.
	On 10th June the town of Tubelo in Halmahera was attacked from land and sea. Two hundred were killed and hundreds wounded. The rest of the Christian population fled to the hills and elsewhere in Indonesia. Bodies were mutilated before they were beheaded. The island of Ternate had a large majority of Christians but has now been totally cleared of Christians, with an unknown number killed. All the evidence suggests that jihad warriors are gaining active support from disaffected elements of the Indonesian armed forces and that many of them are being trained by advisers from other militant Islamic countries.
	It is inevitably difficult to obtain accurate information, but local Christians fear biased media coverage in this predominantly Muslim country, which portrays Christians as the aggressors. This perception encourages Muslims from elsewhere to come to the region to carry out a jihad against Christians to protect the Muslims whom they believe are under threat.
	Many believe that the religious conflict is an orchestrated campaign by Suharto's supporters to destabilise the government and regain power. There is also a fear that militant Islamic extremists wish to undermine President Wahid's commitment to religious tolerance. In massive rallies earlier this year, an extremist movement behind the Laskar Jihad started recruiting volunteers to join the jihad against the so-called "Christian separatists" in the Moluccas. The movement claims to have recruited over 10,000 volunteers since January and the 3,000 jihad warriors reportedly converging on the Moluccas had been trained in military-style training camps.
	Local people believe that Islamists in the military and in government are planning to drive out all Christians from the Moluccas, one of the few parts of Indonesia where Christians maintain a significant presence. They also believe that this may be part of a longer-term plan to turn Indonesia into an Islamic state by 2003, and then to establish a more extremist Islamic state, which would have far-reaching implications regionally and globally.
	These fears for the future are cause for serious concern. However, I must highlight the present dire situation in which many thousands of people--both Muslims and Christians--are suffering. We witnessed the widespread destruction of homes, churches and mosques on a massive scale. We visited communities driven into the jungle to try to survive in the most primitive conditions, with no adequate housing, food supplies or healthcare.
	We went by boat to the island of Haruku. People from Ambon were crowding onto the ferries, evacuating their homes, in fear of the threatened jihad. En route to Haruku, we passed close by the village of Tial, which had been attacked in October 1999, when the village and church were destroyed. It had been a place where Muslims and Christians had lived together in peace. When the attack occurred, some Muslims helped the Christians to defend their church; six of them died in the church.
	On the island of Haruku, we found harbour villages devastated. They had been attacked on 23rd January this year by troops from land and sea. The land troops came over the mountains, wearing the characteristic jihad white uniforms and headbands. The troops attacking from the sea reportedly consisted of a mixture of jihad warriors and regular military forces. Neighbours from a nearby village tried to help the local villagers defend their homes and church, but they were overwhelmed. Four were killed in the church, which was destroyed. Only an empty shell remains, with a bombshell serving as a symbolic bell and the mangled remains of the weathercock from the top of the spire suspended from a telephone cable. The population of the village was over 3,600. We visited them, displaced in the jungle. On the way, we met a family carrying a child suffering from malaria. Some medical supplies are still available--but not enough. There is an urgent need for more healthcare.
	The pastor told us, "The attack started at 5 a.m. and continued until noon. Nine people were killed by the military at the football pitch. Many others were injured. Some injured were still alive when the military came with bayonets and stabbed them in the neck. We didn't have time to collect our dead. Those who died were beheaded. We have not been able to find their heads, because the soldiers take them." As we left, the pastor pleaded, "If we don't get any help, we will die."
	We also had meetings with community leaders in Ujung Pandang and in Ambon where we heard many accounts of similar attacks on local communities, both Christian and Muslim. We saw video footage of some of the attacks, and we saw and heard many examples of indescribable atrocities perpetrated by jihad warriors. Some are detailed in our reports. They are too gruesome to recount in this House.
	We also heard and saw evidence of attacks on Muslim communities and the suffering of displaced Muslims. We met local parliamentary representatives, both Muslim and Christian. All stressed the need for reconciliation. However, reconciliation must be based on openness, honesty and acknowledgement of all that has happened. When we tried to ascertain the extent of the suffering experienced by the Muslim communities, the Muslim parliamentarian declined to give figures. According to other community leaders, the estimate was, very approximately, that of those suffering from sectarian raids about 75 per cent were Christian and about 25 per cent Muslim.
	I conclude by asking the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government will encourage the Indonesian Government to take urgent action to stop the murderous activities of the jihad and allow international monitors to be attached to the armed forces; to allow an international fact-finding mission to undertake an impartial investigation into the conflicts in the Moluccas; to take immediate measures to investigate, identify and prosecute those responsible for these conflicts, which have caused such immense suffering; to act swiftly and impartially to provide humanitarian assistance to all those currently suffering from the conflict and to allow unrestricted access to the region for humanitarian aid agencies. Will Her Majesty's Government do everything possible to increase the provision of humanitarian relief to the region?
	The situation is critical. President Wahid is trying valiantly to help Indonesia to recover from the legacy of Suharto rule, to develop democracy, reduce corruption and maintain religious pluralism. He has many powerful opponents: those who want to bring back previous political leaders, and those who want to move Indonesia forward to a more militant, intolerant Islamic regime. Both factions may be using the present conflict to further their own ends by destabilising the nation and weakening President Wahid's government.
	It must be in the interests of Her Majesty's Government to support President Wahid in his commitment to maintain democracy and religious tolerance in this vast, complex and influential nation. I know that the Government are deeply concerned and I much look forward to the Minister's reply, with the expectation that it will bring to the Government of Indonesia some promise of support, and to the people in Maluccu and North Sulawesi, who are suffering so acutely, the assurance that they are not forgotten and that help will be forthcoming.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I thank her for initiating this important and timely debate.
	We have heard again today of the latest suffering brought about by the sectarian violence that has engulfed the once happy and peaceful communities in Indonesia. It is right and proper that we should turn our thoughts to the unfortunate people who live their daily lives in fear, brought about by intimidation, cruelty and intolerance. It is also right that we ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy towards recent developments in Indonesia.
	I am aware that the options open to the Government are rather limited. However, the reconciliation of efforts that have been made and are being made by the British Government in the Moluccas are both welcome and necessary. I hope that the joint efforts with the Indonesian authorities in that troubled region can be built upon among the international community at large.
	The need for a proper and in-depth investigation by the Indonesian Government into the causes of the conflict between the Christian and Muslim communities has been well documented in a recent report from the Christian Solidarity Worldwide organisation referred to by the noble Baroness. The investigation should be open and wide-ranging; it should include international representatives. Such an investigation is vitally necessary if the spiral of violence is to be ended.
	It has been estimated that more than 3,000 people have died and some 270,000 people have been displaced in the Moluccas alone. It is difficult for us, in the safety of this society, to comprehend how people live in the constant shadow of conflict and threatened violence. The suffering is all too real, and such has been the case for the past 18 months.
	The reports of jihad warriors arriving in the Molucca Islands led to a Question being tabled for Written Answer in another place on 23rd May. The Government's response at that time confirmed that they had received reports that a number of extremists from outside Maluku had travelled to the province. They were under close scrutiny by the authorities in Maluku. In the same response, the Government said:
	"We have urged the Indonesian Government to ensure that the security forces maintain law and order and the protection of all citizens".--[Official Report, Commons, 23/5/00; col. 410W.]
	I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister if the Government have received a response from the Indonesian authorities. Further, did the representations to the Indonesian authorities include a request for the expulsion of jihad warriors from the islands?
	The report from Christian Solidarity Worldwide contains details of recent events in a number of places where violence is taking place daily. The time available in this debate does not allow me to quote from the reports of happenings in a number of the islands. It is sufficient to say that the reports contain harrowing and graphic accounts of the killings and maiming of a large number of people.
	In opening the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, mentioned Ambon. Perhaps I may quote one small part of the report that records recent violence in Ambon. It states,
	"Echoing words from Dili last September, the people of Ambon cry, 'We need help, when will the world intervene to stop the violence and death in Ambon! Can Australia help? It's our only hope. There is nothing we can do for tonight Ambon is dying'. Please pray for the people of Ambon and especially remember those Christians who are being terrorised through a campaign of violence and intimidation".
	Let us this evening hear and heed the cry of the people of Ambon.
	I applaud the work of Christian Solidarity Worldwide and in particular the outstanding contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. All Members of this House are indebted to the noble Baroness and to Christian Solidarity Worldwide for drawing our attention to the situation that sadly prevails in Indonesia.
	It is my hope and prayer that the concern expressed this evening will hasten the time when preservation of life and religious freedom for all of Indonesia's people is fulfilled.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, it is a privilege for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, and to echo and endorse everything that he has said. It is indicative of the widespread concern that many of the sentiments that the noble Lord has expressed, and before him the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will be echoed on all sides of the House.
	Before turning to the main burden of my remarks, perhaps I may say that we all owe the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, a great debt of gratitude for the characteristic way in which she has seen for herself at first hand and has been able to tell us about the situation in the Moluccas and in Indonesia generally. That is characteristic of the noble Baroness herself and her description this evening of this humanitarian disaster. Devoid of unnecessary hype or emotion, she told us the facts in a straightforward way. I believe that we are now all well aware of the need to take urgent action to try to assist the people in that beleaguered place.
	During May this year a delegation from the Jubilee Campaign, with which I am associated, visited Indonesia. That delegation included Joseph Pitts, a US Congressman, and Mr Mark Siljander, a retired US Congressman. During that visit they met President Abdurrahman Wahid. Even while they debated these issues with him on 28th May in another part of Indonesia, Medan, bombs were placed in a Protestant church building. They exploded during a service and 47 people were injured. It was one of three bombs which had been placed in Medan that weekend. The local governor, Tengku Rizalnurdin, was quoted as saying:
	"This is certainly designed by provocateurs".
	The bombs were the same as those used in attacks carried out in Maluku and Jakarta.
	The Jubilee delegation visited hospitals in Medan 48 hours after the attacks to see some of the victims, many of them young women. The bombs had been placed underneath a gallery in the church where the young women were sitting. Many of those young women remain untreated. One of them had open wounds, and bomb fragments and nails remained embedded in her body. The delegation was told that there were no resources to deal with all of the victims.
	In a letter of today's date, in reply to mine of 11th May, Mr John Battle states that Her Majesty's Government would,
	"not hesitate to engage in frank discussion"
	with the Indonesian Government. I hope that the material which has been assembled by Christian Solidarity Worldwide, to which the noble Baroness alluded, and the Jubilee delegation which visited Indonesia will feature strongly in those discussions.
	The Minister's letter replies to concerns that I voiced to him about the violence in Ambon and the Molucca islands. To date, some 162 churches--60 Catholic and the others Protestant--have been destroyed throughout the Maluku islands. In the whole of North and South Maluku about 400 churches have been destroyed since February 1999.
	Although Jakarta has organised many fact-finding teams to investigate these abuses of human rights, no reports whatsoever of those investigations have been made public. As in East Timor, the situation has been exacerbated by the flow of arms into that troubled part of the world. One non-governmental organisation claims that 700 arms found recently originated in Nigeria. Clearly, the flow of arms, the absence of international monitors, the imposition of jihad, the destruction of churches and the targeting of vulnerable Christians are all the components needed to create an international tragedy that could end in genocide.
	During this brief debate I should like to mention six headlines which perhaps give some idea of what I and others, primarily from the American Congress, who have had the opportunity to see the situation, believe should be done in consequence of all that has been said so far in the debate. I believe that Her Majesty's Government should put pressure on the Indonesian Government during the dialogue to which Mr John Battle refers in his letter: first, to remove more than 2,000 Islamic militants who have infiltrated into the Moluccas province to wage a jihad and to stop further influxes of fighters with the deliberate intention to create the kind of tension that we have seen so far and to disrupt the co-existence that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, rightly reminded us, previously existed.
	Secondly, we must ensure that those Indonesian military units which, instead of acting neutrally, have taken sides in the conflict are removed from that theatre. Thirdly, we must take decisive action to punish those responsible for atrocities. Fourthly, I believe that unilaterally Her Majesty's Government should impose an arms embargo on Indonesia and urge the European Union to do likewise. All aid to Indonesia should be closely linked to the actions of its government to restore peace in the Moluccas. Fifthly, there is an urgent need for international monitors. The Christians in the Moluccas and their church leaders have frequently called for United Nations intervention. Although I note that Mr John Battle says in his letter that the situation is not comparable with that in East Timor because there is no question of disputed sovereignty, which I accept, nevertheless there are many precedents in other parts of the world for the involvement of UN monitors, even though questions of sovereignty are not on the table. Monitors would be free of the allegation of bias which is so often levelled at the Indonesian security forces.
	Church leaders in Indonesia have also urged that neutral third-party human rights investigators, such as UN human rights monitors, be sent to the Moluccas to investigate the causes of the conflict and human rights abuses that have taken place there. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that particular point in her reply.
	I turn finally to the issue of aid. So far about 3,000 Muslims and Christians have died in the conflict, and it is estimated that over 300,000 people have been internally displaced. The British Government and European Union should also do a lot more to get humanitarian assistance to the vast number of internally displaced people and those who suffer as a result of the conflict, such as people in Medan to whom I referred earlier. I hope that when the Minister replies she will outline the nature of the humanitarian aid which is being provided at the present time by Her Majesty's Government and what is being done to ensure that it is distributed equitably between all the groups affected by the crisis. At the weekend I noted that in one of the newspapers President Abdurrahman Wahid was reported as addressing the Christian Conference of Asia and calling for mutual understanding and tolerance. We all hope and pray that that sentiment becomes a reality.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, like other noble Lords I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for initiating this short debate, which is not only important but particularly timely. Like other noble Lords, my concern is also with these religious clashes. The noble Baroness indicated the social, economic and political background to the clashes. I hope that the House will be assisted if I mention three other factors.
	First, Indonesia is not only the most populous Islamic country in the world but traditionally it has been the most tolerant, incorporating many elements of pre-Islamic culture and creating a society in which other religions are respected.
	Secondly, as a result of the process of modernisation there has been heightened religious consciousness in Indonesia over the past 20 or 30 years so that people have found their identity through the mosque or church. As people move to the big towns and cities, particularly Jakarta, from outlying islands and villages, whereas in the past traditionally their identity and culture lay in their village, now it is to be found round the mosque and church, which heightens the sense of the public importance of religion.
	The third background fact is that over the past 40 years or so there has been a variety of Islamic renewals in Indonesia. We are extremely fortunate in that President Abdurrahman Wahid has been very closely associated with the most helpful form of Islamic renewal in Indonesia which is based upon traditional Islamic schools. He has argued for a renewal of Islamic society through a renewal of culture and has opposed the imposition of an Islamic state. He has been quite clear that religion and the multi-cultural and multi-religious state need to be separated. It is extremely fortunate that it is he who is president.
	I have followed these extremely serious clashes, which have continued for a long time, in The Tablet. That excellent publication has better world coverage than any national newspaper. I shall not repeat the details which have been mentioned. I give just one figure. In 1999 at least 2,500 people were killed in the Spice Islands. As other noble Lords have mentioned, there was a recent serious raid--the dawn raid on mainly, although not exclusively, Christian villages in which up to 80 other people were killed. Although we focus mainly on the Spice Islands, there have been bombs in many other places in Indonesia.
	When President Abdurrahman Wahid addressed the Christian Conference of Asia on 3rd June, he rightly called for religious tolerance. He also stressed that these problems must be solved locally. He said:
	"We should thrash out our ideas in talks at the local level. Maybe the central government will send someone to facilitate the meeting, but the community itself should take the initiative".
	But the local communities have already been heavily engaged in achieving religious tolerance. Religious leaders, both Islamic and Christian, have worked very hard locally. More than a local response is needed.
	As other noble Lords have emphasised, the big question is this. What are those 2,000 armed people doing there? How are they allowed to be armed and trained? Why is no one stopping them? Lawlessness is fomenting religious strife for some of the reasons mentioned by the noble Baroness. There was clear evidence in earlier clashes in Indonesia that much of that religious strife was stirred up by government forces. In this case, it is not the government forces but probably supporters of the former president Suharto aligned with other extremist elements.
	How can the Government best use their influence to ensure that President Wahid uses government power and government force to stop this unbridled lawlessness? If it were left to the local people, I do not believe that there would be these clashes. As the noble Baroness emphasised, those people have lived together happily for a long time. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, put forward a series of practical suggestions. I, too, shall listen with great interest to the Minister's response on the influence our Government can bring to bear in order to help President Wahid bring the situation under control.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, when I was young, I attended Highbury Chapel in Bristol which was built on the site where five Christian martyrs were burnt to death. The plaque commemorating that was in white marble and clearly visible from the house in which I grew up. Fortunately, differences on doctrinal matters are not so drastically dealt with. We have much greater tolerance among our various Christian denominations.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who helps us by initiating these debates, is constantly thanked and praised for her efforts. However, we must not let the noble Baroness carry our consciences for us. She has drawn attention not only to the problems in Indonesia but also to those in the Sudan, Burma and other parts of the world where Christians are in very great difficulties. There is a responsibility on everyone who appreciates that situation to move forward and make (what is called in the jargon) a step increase in activity to counter it.
	In the annual report of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, the organisation with which the noble Baroness is associated, the chief executive, Mervyn Thomas, states in his introduction:
	"In the last year of a century which saw more Christians persecuted for their faith than all other centuries put together, I believe our achievements were truly remarkable. With more than 250 million Christian believers suffering in one form or another ...".
	That gives some idea of the scale of the problem. That is buttressed by a quote which I have mentioned twice previously in this House. It is still absolutely true and correct, and it has to be said time and again until people take note of it. A report commissioned by the United States State Department, published in the spring of 1997, states:
	"Though religious persecution is being experienced by people of different faiths (Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Christians, Bahais and others) the overwhelming majority of cases worldwide have to do with Christians. This situation reflects the fact that Christians are today the single most persecuted religious group in the world".
	We all have to concentrate our efforts on what to do about that situation. We hear a great deal about pressure groups. I have talked about them in this House in particular in relation to the able and skilled way in which comparatively small groups have had the constitution of this country changed; and further changes are in prospect. A great deal of success has been achieved by these extremely able people. Having accomplished all this work on constitutional changes in this country, I should now like them to consider organising pressure to help our fellow Christian brothers and sisters abroad. If people decide that they will persecute a Christian community in their country, they should know that there will be such an organised volume of protest that they will face a difficult situation.
	I should like to believe that we can go forward; that that message may be taken up by some of the people to whom I have referred (of whom some may now be at a loose end); and that they will help the work already being undertaken so that we can make a real impact and stretch out the hand of fellowship and relief to our persecuted brothers and sisters abroad.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I, too, extend my warm thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who has added yet another war-torn country to her travelling list. This time she has chosen a vast state which is experimenting with democracy but where there are inevitably many existing and potential conflicts arising from the collapse of the former dictatorship. There are some reasons for optimism, but until the army and Golkar have greater confidence in the administration there will be continuing political and economic uncertainty. I believe that the EU has a vital role in supporting Indonesia in this democratic process.
	I hope that it is in order again to raise the case of Timor because of its importance to Indonesia and the presence of refugees on Indonesian soil. Despite the relief of independence last August the ensuing violence left a new nation in ruins and a trail of hatred in the hearts of many former inhabitants. The refugees include elements of the pro-autonomy militias who caused the violence. It will take a long time for these physical and psychological wounds to heal.
	The names of Aranyaprathet and Goma still haunt the United Nations and aid agencies. The Khmer Rouge in Thailand after Cambodia's year zero, and the Interahamwe and others in Zaire after the horrors of Rwanda, while posing as refugees continued to exercise their brutal control even when humanitarian agencies had jurisdiction. The international community has repeatedly tried, and failed, to be on the side of the angels. The fact is that in a civil war there are villains on both sides and the United Nations is supposed to remain neutral. That did not always happen in Goma and it is not yet happening in West Timor.
	It may be time for this House to debate the role of the United Nations again in order to examine its mandate and see whether it can possibly cope with the scale of peacekeeping operations world-wide. Indonesia is already on the list of countries stretching international humanitarian resources to the limit, with more than 400,000 Moluccans, Acehnese and other internally displaced persons at the end of 1999. But that is not for today.
	On the positive side, we should congratulate the East Timorese on their progress since independence and the High Commissioner for Refugees, among others, for the repatriation of more than half of the 200,000 refugees now returned to East Timor. However, the numbers crossing have diminished and there are still up to 125,000 in the West, most in the Belu regency or around Kupang. Even higher figures come from the Indonesian Government. The United Nations has not yet been able to register all of those refugees, some of whom live in scattered settlements. It estimates that there are 267 individual sites. Many camps are inevitably close to the border and inaccessible to the aid agencies.
	Not only is humanitarian aid denied to many because of access problems, but security threats to refugees and HCR staff have been constant. Convoys have been stoned and police protection is inadequate. There has also been hostility from the local population, especially those who own land where refugees have been temporarily settled.
	Although the situation has improved along the border recently, the militias have maintained a powerful hold even on the organised camps, intimidating refugees and discrediting the HCR staff who have tried, for their part, to present a positive image of the return of normality in East Timor to encourage repatriation.
	Last week, the head of the United Nations programme described the situation as "very fragile" and "volatile". The pro-auton leaders still offer their supporters the mirage that the elections can be invalidated and that Indonesian-backed militias can yet re-establish control in Dili. Some hopes have been placed in the possible reconciliation of one military commander, Mr Hermino Costa da Silva, who met Mr Sergio de Mello, the head of UNTAET, last week and appeared to recognise the weight of public opinion in East Timor. The East Timor leader, Mr Xanana Gusmao, also plans to visit the West Timor refugee camps. Those are positive signs.
	Meanwhile, there are serious humanitarian problems in the settlements, with food shortages and health risks which Oxfam says could soon develop into a public health crisis. Flash floods and landslides in May displaced 16,000 people who still suffer from a shortage of proper shelter, water and sanitation.
	For all those reasons, the United Nations and Indonesia's Governor Tallo are seriously considering resettlement over the coming months. This may encourage some refugees who are uncertain about the future to join the repatriation programme. But the longer they wait the more they are likely to be seen as collaborators. Many are former civil servants and East Timor desperately needs their skills to rebuild its administration.
	Finally, can the Minister say what the Government are doing to support humanitarian work in West Timor? I am sorry that I have not given notice of that question. Furthermore, are any United Kingdom non-governmental agencies involved and receiving UK assistance? As the right reverend Prelate said, Indonesia has a tradition of tolerance. My experience of the Pancasila is that that is almost unshakeable. I hope that the noble Baroness's fears of an Islamist state are proved groundless, but she is right to draw attention to the terrible persecutions and tragedies which have occurred.

Lord Rea: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and other noble Lords have most effectively covered the situation in Maluku. Therefore, I shall move on to other areas of concern.
	Although the economy of Indonesia has recovered from its lowest ebb in 1998, there are still 36 million unemployed people. Both internal and external investment are at a very low ebb. The Chinese diaspora moved much of their capital out of the country after the anti-Chinese riots of 1998. Can my noble friend say what prospects our Government and the international financial organisations hold out for further economic recovery?
	Suharto fell as a result of the economic crisis of 1997. His much more popular successor, President Wahid, is unlikely to survive if economic progress does not occur. Although the influence of the military at the centre of government has been greatly reduced by President Wahid, it is a different matter in the field, where local commanders seem to be able to follow their own agenda with impunity, sometimes through the use of violent local militia, as in East Timor.
	We all know too well that their effect was devastating and many towns and villages remain largely destroyed; perhaps 130,000 enforced refugees still live in concentration camp conditions in West Timor. My informants tell me that the Indonesian security services are intimidating refugees and contributing to the process which is preventing them from returning home.
	It is good that we now have an FCO post in Dili. It would be helpful if my noble friend could briefly describe the activities co-ordinated from this base, both independently and together with the United Nations. The Australians have carried the brunt of the security and relief operation in East Timor to date. Can my noble friend briefly say what financial and other assistance we are providing and what are our plans for the future in East Timor?
	Finally, I want to say a few words about Irian Jaya, West Papua. That large territory was transferred from Dutch to Indonesian hands in 1962, in the absence of any West Papuan representatives. The 1969 "Act of Free Choice", which legitimised the annexation, is widely held to have been flawed and illegal. Last month, the West Papuan People's Congress, attended by thousands of ordinary West Papuan people, proclaimed their independence. Although the Indonesian Government are firmly opposed to secession, the West Papuans appear to have a good case considering the circumstance of the original annexation 38 years ago.
	I realise that it is not easy for Her Majesty's Government to state a public position on this, but there is no doubt that if not handled skilfully a further violent trouble spot will emerge further to drain Indonesia's resources.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, it would probably be easier to recite a list of the countries which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has not visited rather than to list those she has visited, as did the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. But once again she has done your Lordships a tremendous service by initiating the debate on the present situation in Indonesia. Her comments on Maluku are of enormous importance as a description of the situation, the number of people killed and the number displaced. She might also have added the number of people thrown out of work, which I gather now exceeds 100,000.
	That is all as a result of the awful clashes which were exacerbated by the influx of the 2,000 Laskar jihad fighters from Java. That was pointed out by the noble Baroness, by the right reverent Prelate and by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead. I understand that they were training quite openly in a camp in West Java. Although the Home Affairs Minister, retired General Surjadi Sudirdja, pleaded with them not to go to Ambon, nothing was done physically to prevent them from leaving. I am told that when they arrived in Ambon they were received by the Governor, Saleh Latuconsina, and the military commander, Brigadier General Max Tamaela, who, paradoxically, is a Christian.
	According to one authority, President Wahid ordered a blockade to stop the fighters from landing in Ambon. However, from the end of May onwards the armed forces there kept a very low profile, amounting almost to invisibility. The commander of the jihadists, one Dja'far Umar Thalib, who is said to be an Afghan veteran and is obviously extremely well financed, established a base on Ternate, from which he conducts seaborne raids on the Christian villages, as the noble Baroness described.
	It seems that no attempt has been made to stop those activities by the military. Mr Thalib is reported to move freely between Ternate and the capital in Jakarta. Therefore, I should like to add to the questions put to the Minister by the noble Baroness. What do the Government know about the activities of this particular gentleman, and why are the Indonesian Government not attempting to restrain him, take him into custody and charge him with offences arising from the atrocities which his forces have committed?
	Unfortunately, as we have heard from this debate, Maluku is not the only part of Indonesia where violence and anarchy are being stirred up. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, it will take years, if not decades, to repair the damage which was done by the army-supported militias in East Timor. As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, pointed out, there are still over 100,000 refugees in West Timor who, we believe, are being prevented from returning by the militias.
	I saw a report by a recent delegation of congressional staffers and human rights workers, including a representative of the London-based human rights organisation, TAPOL, on a visit which they paid to the camps at the beginning of May. They reported evidence of militia control and intimidation and of TNI collusion with the militias. They said that they saw militias controlling the distribution of food to the camps. They saw that the camps are highly militarised, that the UNHCR dares not venture into them without a TNI escort, and they found that there was, as they put it,
	"a serious disconnect between what the civilian government of Indonesia wants and what the military powers prefer".
	That means that no amount of pressure on Jakarta will be effective unless the TNI can be made to agree that it should remove all weapons from the camps, preferably under UN supervision, so that the UNHCR can take control over its administration.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rea, said that the military local commanders follow their own agenda. Nowhere is that more true than in Aceh, where the armed forces have waged a systematic campaign of violence against the people for many years. The three-month "humanitarian pause", which came into force on 2nd June, was a breakthrough in the sense that for the first time Indonesians accepted the good offices of an international agency in dealing with an internal problem--in this case, an armed opposition. However, it does not appear to have moderated the conflict. Incidentally, perhaps that could be used as a precedent to bring in international agencies to examine some of the other problems that affect many other parts of Indonesia, including Maluku.
	During the humanitarian pause in Aceh, reports were received of attacks on soldiers by the GAM and retaliation by the armed forces against civilians. We and others have been pressing for trials of those who committed the war crimes and crimes against humanity in East Timor. I believe that we should extend that demand so that similar crimes in Aceh, Maluku and other parts of Indonesia can be dealt with in the same way according to law.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned the West Papua People's Congress, which, as he said, was attended by some 3,000 delegates from all parts of the territory and declared that the so-called "Act of Free Choice", by which West Papua became part of Indonesia, was null and void. The government took a conciliatory line on that at first, apparently hoping that if the West Papuans were allowed to let off steam in the congress, they could be cajoled into an amicable relationship with the centre. However, when they saw the line being taken by the delegates, they took fright. I understand that they have now begun to pick off the leaders who attended and arrested them. The official line now is that foreigners who attended the conference were provoking agitation. They are referring to the delegates from Papua New Guinea and Australian NGOs, some of whom are sympathetic to the view, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that the UN violated its own rules on self-determination when it handed West Papua over to Jakarta without a referendum.
	I do not believe that the disparate peoples of Indonesia can be ruled without their consent or that, in the long run, the Indonesian military could cope with the enormous task of suppressing independence movements and dealing with communal violence. The best hope of keeping Indonesia together as a state would be to allow territories such as West Papua and Aceh to control their own affairs, except for foreign affairs and defence, with mineral rights shared on a basis to be agreed with locally-elected legislatures. The army's support of the civil power could then be concentrated on preventing conflicts between religious or ethnic groups.
	The development of genuine accountability, which is also essential to a stable Indonesia, would not be achieved on present policies. The draft Bill on human rights courts proposes that the courts would have jurisdiction over gross violations of human rights. However, there are concerns that the definition of those crimes is inconsistent with that adopted by the International Criminal Court and also that some of the offences may not have been crimes under Indonesian law at the time that they were committed.
	As has been said, Britain and the EU have very limited influence over these matters. We have funded initiatives to promote reconciliation in Maluku; we have encouraged the Ministry of Human Rights, which has a mere six employees and has yet to resolve its boundaries with Komnas Ham, the national human rights commission; and the Foreign Secretary says that:
	"We are ready to help in any realistic and sensible way in reducing ethnic tensions and violence".--[Official Report, Commons, 16/5/00; col. 107W.]
	I believe there is far more that we can do to help Indonesia to come to grips with the underlying causes of violence and human rights violations and to examine all possible solutions.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, all the participants in this short debate have expressed their warm appreciation of the role played by my noble friend Lady Cox in bringing to us her first-hand accounts of this appalling tragedy. I strongly endorse everything that has been said about the service that she has performed.
	The odd thing is that before the Asian currency turmoil and the collapse of the Thai baht--although, of course, the East Timor tragedy had been unfolding over the years and there were many problems--the general world view (it may be an ignorant view but it was a world view) of the vast country of Indonesia was that it was extremely prosperous and stable. Indeed, the great gurus of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the other world financial institutions were telling investors around the world that Indonesia was high on the list of desirable places in which to invest. Indeed, the IMF approved of the way in which the country was being run. That says a number of things. I believe that one is that economists are nearly always wrong about other countries; another is that the global financial system can be very indiscriminate and is unable to pick up and sense the different problems and developments in different cultures and different areas of the world.
	What occurred was that East Asia went down as a whole, followed by other countries, including Russia. Again, contrary to the prediction of the economists, East Asia rose again and in most cases has recovered well. Unfortunately, Indonesia, the largest of the nations of East Asia--one of the largest in the world--has recovered more slowly.
	Sometimes I believe that Indonesian citizens must feel that their country has been cursed by an endless series of disasters that have unfolded. There was the financial earthquake. Then they suffered the endless series of hideously bitter religious wars, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred. That was fought with an intensity that seems almost medieval and is very hard for us to grasp. The Molucca problem has worsened, and is getting worse while we have this debate. There were the horrific developments in Aceh, which Mr Lee Kuan Yew told me were being financed by Libyan arms and Iranian money. He saw no end to them, although recently a truce has been signed in Geneva that may just hold things. Then there were other areas of disintegration and riots in Ambon and in other parts of the republic. Then there was a real earthquake on top of the financial earthquake, and on top of that were the hideous forest fires. There were many other problems: starving areas, a shortage of food, the vendettas against the Chinese, who had to flee for their lives, mainly to Singapore, and so on. The series of events could not have been more disastrous. One is left asking whether it could have been prevented. Was there a point at which the horrific story of the past two years could have been curbed? I suspect probably not.
	Former President Suharto obviously had to go. He was running a corrupt and rotten regime, but it had a cruel stability. All the hideous developments that we have talked about this evening remained hidden, apart from those in East Timor.
	Could the International Monetary Fund have acted differently? Did it make matters worse? I believe that it probably did make matters a bit worse. A more sensitive and focused understanding from the IMF management of the problems caused by pressing its demands for restructuring and reform too hard might have prevented some of the worst difficulties and ugliest developments.
	I should declare a remote interest, in that I advise a bank that was the retained adviser to the Ministry of Finance in Jakarta. My colleagues found it extraordinarily difficult to get the real problems over to the IMF and to explain that pushing ahead on the economic side and ignoring the political repercussions would make matters much worse.
	Then there is the army, about which noble Lords have spoken. It is playing a sinister role. Some people are looking forward to a coup or a military takeover, possibly with the formation of an Islamic state. The role of the army is ambiguous in Aceh and many other places, as we have heard from first-hand accounts. The desperate need for the civil authority to recapture or recontrol the army is central to Indonesian stability.
	Despite all that gloom, Indonesia remains. Two years ago, people in Singapore were telling me that Indonesia was going to unravel and that it would be one of the great modern states that would disappear, broken up into a hideous series of provincial warring tribes. That has not happened. That is not saying much, because a lot of things have happened, but the Indonesian state remains intact--just. A lot of credit must go to the deceptively mild Abdurrahman Wahid, the new President, who, against many predictions about his feebleness, has quietly exerted the best influence that he can in the circumstances, with an angry army on one side and extreme feeling on the other. He has done a remarkable job and we should not underestimate him or some of his colleagues as they attempt to cope with well nigh impossible circumstances.
	What do we do? We are a responsible nation, active in all the great world forums. We must do our humanitarian best, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Oxford, said. We must play our full part in the United Nations development programme. It was useful that the right reverend Prelate spoke, because the Churches must get involved and talk to the moderate leaders of Islam, although I am not sure how that will work. We are always told what a moderate religion Islam is and how Islamic and Christian people lived in close harmony--indeed, in syncretic worship--for a lot of history. Is it not possible for the forces of moderate Islam to have some curb on the wilder people and their cruel jihad and obsessions against the Christian minorities?
	Finally, we have to remain vigilant not just for humanitarian reasons, but for reasons of global stability. Indonesia is a volatile area. The great oil routes to the Asian powers pass through the Molucca straits. China is beginning to import ever more oil and will not tolerate any intervention in its imports of oil from the Gulf. Other great nations will be involved. The situation is full of dangers for global stability, as well as dangers and horrors for the people living in the area. It is not easy to see how any neat programme can be worked out to solve the problems, but by debating them and showing our concern, trying to stretch out to meet some of the hideous problems that have been so graphically described, at least we are doing our little bit.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I must thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for initiating this evening's debate. It is over a year since the House debated the subject of Indonesia, and, as noble Lords will be only too aware, Indonesia has seen dramatic changes over that period. I also thank all those who have participated in the debate. Each in their diverse way has made a special contribution to issues of humanitarian importance. I very much welcome this opportunity to set out the Government's policy towards Indonesia.
	In 1999, the country took major steps towards full democracy, with its first genuinely multi-party elections in over 40 years in June last year. We contributed over £2 million, focusing on support for the independent electoral commission, voter education and domestic monitoring. We are actively fostering UK-Indonesian parliamentary links. Several groups of Indonesian MPs visited the UK this year, and my honourable friend Mark Fisher visited Jakarta for a seminar to discuss alternative parliamentary models.
	The International Parliamentary Union's conference in Jakarta this October will mark a watershed in Indonesia's re-engagement with the world's parliamentary movement.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked about the Indonesian economic situation. While still fragile, the macro-economic picture is improving, with positive growth and low inflation, although foreign investment has yet to recover. The agriculture sector is thriving, taking on many who might otherwise be unemployed. I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said about the picture having looked bleak in the past but now changing.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, also referred to East Timor. The terrible events in East Timor last August and September have left deep scars, but the territory is now well on the way to independent statehood. The UK continues to make a substantial contribution. We have provided £6.5 million in emergency aid and a further £12 million over three years. As tonight's debate is focused on Indonesia and time is short, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not go into detail on that but I shall respond in writing to the specific points that have been made.
	We are pleased that more than 160,000 refugees have returned to East Timor from West Timor. Those remaining must be free to choose whether to stay or return without intimidation from militia groups. Our Ambassador has raised the issue with the Indonesian Government.
	Abdurrahman Wahid became Indonesia's first democratically elected President on 22nd October 1999. I very much endorse the supportive comments that have been made about him by a number of noble Lords. He moved quickly to appoint a government of national unity. He gave Indonesia its first civilian Minister of Defence in over 40 years and created a new Ministry for Human Rights, headed by a former political prisoner from Aceh. The new Attorney-General is pursuing human rights cases, although much remains to be done.
	I very much welcome the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford about the considerable efforts being made to promote religious tolerance. I should say to my noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead that President Wahid has responded to our inquiries and reaffirmed his commitment to secure lasting peace between the two communities through dialogue.
	The new government have also taken positive steps towards separating the police from the military. They have advanced by six months the proposed transfer of the police from the Ministry of Defence to the President's office. We are also providing practical support. A senior British police officer began his attachment at the British Embassy on 1st June, co-ordinating with United States and Japanese initiatives. He will help the police develop a strategic vision for change and a road map for implementation. A proper democratic and accountable police force is key to proper human rights observance. Police reform is only one part of our efforts to support wider governance reform.
	So I would like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and others that the Department for International Development is working closely with the Government of Indonesia, the United Nations Development Programme and the World Bank on governance reform through a "governance partnership". That is extremely important, offering expertise and resources in response to Indonesian Government priorities and through a forum which co-ordinates donor support.
	We want to work in ways which help broaden the constituency for reform and support the processes that will achieve that. Our help is demand-led. We and other international players will be looking to respond to Indonesian requests rather than trying to impose models or solutions from outside. So the help that we are seeking to give President Wahid is real and it is hoped that it will help him to deliver many of the things which noble Lords have identified that Indonesia needs. Despite the tremendous achievements over the last year, key challenges remain for President Wahid's democratic government.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for her sad and detailed account of recent developments in Maluku and for the tragic details outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The recent escalation of violence after a period of relative calm illustrates the fragility of the spirit of reconciliation that had begun to take hold in Ambon. We deplore the loss of all life resulting from the latest violence and share the concern of many noble Lords at the arrival of extremists from outside Maluku.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, my noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and a number of other noble Lords have asked the Government to encourage the Indonesian Government to allow an independent international investigation into the situation in Maluku. President Wahid is aware of the difficulties caused by such adverse outside influences and the need to address the difficulties they present. The violence in Maluku is an internal matter for the Indonesian authorities. Any proposed international investigation, no matter how independent, would be seen as biased by one community or the other. The solution must come from within.
	The international community's role lies in supporting reconciliation and rehabilitation. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, my noble friend Lord Clarke and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will be pleased to hear that EU representatives called on the Indonesian Government on 12th June to remind them of their responsibility to maintain law and order and to request an investigation and immediate steps to bring the perpetrators to justice. We have encouraged the Indonesians to pursue conflict resolution work in the communities concerned.
	As part of the international effort through the UNDP, we have already funded two conferences promoting reconciliation in Maluku, which took place between 28th March and 3rd April. The BBC recently held a UK-funded seminar on objective conflict reporting for journalists in Maluku. The DfID has also seconded a specialist to work with UNDP to establish mechanisms for managing the UN humanitarian response and that of the international community within a framework agreed by the Indonesian Government. We stand ready to help with further conflict prevention projects, where appropriate.
	The noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Howell, rightly raised the issue of Aceh. We welcomed the Memorandum of Understanding on Aceh, signed between the Indonesian Government and the Free Aceh Movement in Geneva on 12th May establishing a "humanitarian pause". That is an encouraging step which we hope will stem or at least reduce the violence and pave the way for serious, detailed negotiations on the future of Aceh. However, although an important breakthrough, that is clearly just a first step on a long road.
	UNDP has agreed to act as the co-ordinator for international humanitarian assistance for the people of Aceh and plans to hold a donor round-table in the next few days. But the level of human rights abuses committed in Aceh by members of both the security forces and the Free Aceh Movement and the outcome of the Bantaqiah trial need to be addressed. A thorough overhaul of the military is essential if peace is finally to return to the province.
	Although the situation in Maluku and Aceh dominate the headlines, problems exist elsewhere in the region, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Representatives of the West Papuan people recently held a conference at which they asserted West Papua's independence, and ethnic unrest has increased in Central Sulawesi, as a number of noble Lords mentioned. The powerful earthquake in Bengkulu province, following on from the recent earthquake in Eastern Central Sulawesi and the floods in West Timor, add to the mounting list of problems facing the government. DfID contributed £250,000 towards the relief effort for the Bengkulu earthquake and our Ambassador in Jakarta will be visiting the province next week. I am not able to give the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, further details today in relation to DfID's contribution to West Timor but I shall write to him about that because time is pressing this evening.
	The transformation of Indonesia toward a full democracy is well on the way. That is bound to be a turbulent process. There will be setbacks as well as successes. We and international partners are actively engaged in supporting that process. We shall continue to help, where we can, to consolidate the advances under way. It is important that we underpin, and not undermine, Indonesia's emerging democracy at this historic turning point.
	When he visited London on 1st February, President Wahid made clear his absolute commitment to resolving the country's regional conflicts through dialogue and reconciliation in order to create a peaceful, democratic and prosperous future for all the people of Indonesia. I endorse the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about the quiet and solid way in which that appears to be being done. I agree with him also that it would be unwise to underestimate just how much President Wahid has been able to achieve.
	While we applaud that, there will be no blank cheques. Where we have concerns, we will share these fully and frankly, as between friends. The challenges facing President Wahid and his team are daunting. It is only right that Indonesian reformers should look to the international community for support. They must not fail.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill [HL]

Reported from the Joint Committee with an amendment and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
	House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before nine o'clock.